Re: [PATCH v6] bpf/scripts: raise an exception if the correct number of helpers are not generated

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



2022-01-14 16:48 UTC-0800 ~ Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx>
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 3:51 PM Song Liu <song@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 4:15 AM Quentin Monnet <quentin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> 2022-01-12 11:49 UTC+0000 ~ Usama Arif <usama.arif@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Currently bpf_helper_defs.h and the bpf helpers man page are auto-generated
>>>> using function documentation present in bpf.h. If the documentation for the
>>>> helper is missing or doesn't follow a specific format for e.g. if a function
>>>> is documented as:
>>>>  * long bpf_kallsyms_lookup_name( const char *name, int name_sz, int flags, u64 *res )
>>>> instead of
>>>>  * long bpf_kallsyms_lookup_name(const char *name, int name_sz, int flags, u64 *res)
>>>> (notice the extra space at the start and end of function arguments)
>>>> then that helper is not dumped in the auto-generated header and results in
>>>> an invalid call during eBPF runtime, even if all the code specific to the
>>>> helper is correct.
>>>>
>>>> This patch checks the number of functions documented within the header file
>>>> with those present as part of #define __BPF_FUNC_MAPPER and raises an
>>>> Exception if they don't match. It is not needed with the currently documented
>>>> upstream functions, but can help in debugging when developing new helpers
>>>> when there might be missing or misformatted documentation.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Usama Arif <usama.arif@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Quentin Monnet <quentin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Acked-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@xxxxxx>
>>
>> Thanks!
> 
> Would be great if we could also enforce minimal formatting consistency
> (i.e., that Description and Return sections are present and that empty
> line before the next function definition is present), but it's an
> improvement anyway. Fixed up don't -> doesn't and applied to bpf-next.

Just noting here for the record - Another possible follow-up could be to
add the same check as you did for the documentation of the syscall
subcommands in the same script (parse_syscall()), to make sure no bpf()
subcommand is misformatted or missing in the doc.

Quentin



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux