On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 5:29 AM Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Deprecate xdp_cpumap xdp_devmap sec definitions.
> Introduce xdp/devmap and xdp/cpumap definitions according to the standard
> for SEC("") in libbpf:
> - prog_type.prog_flags/attach_place
> Update cpumap/devmap samples and kselftests
>
> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Changes since v1:
> - refer to Libbpf-1.0-migration-guide in the warning rised by libbpf
> ---
> samples/bpf/xdp_redirect_cpu.bpf.c | 8 ++++----
> samples/bpf/xdp_redirect_map.bpf.c | 2 +-
> samples/bpf/xdp_redirect_map_multi.bpf.c | 2 +-
> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 12 ++++++++++--
> .../bpf/progs/test_xdp_with_cpumap_frags_helpers.c | 2 +-
> .../bpf/progs/test_xdp_with_cpumap_helpers.c | 2 +-
> .../bpf/progs/test_xdp_with_devmap_frags_helpers.c | 2 +-
> .../bpf/progs/test_xdp_with_devmap_helpers.c | 2 +-
> .../selftests/bpf/progs/xdp_redirect_multi_kern.c | 2 +-
Please split samples/bpf, selftests/bpf, and libbpf changes into
separate patches. We keep them separate whenever possible.
> 9 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
[...]
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> index 4ce94f4ed34a..ba003cabe4a4 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> @@ -237,6 +237,8 @@ enum sec_def_flags {
> SEC_SLOPPY_PFX = 16,
> /* BPF program support non-linear XDP buffer */
> SEC_XDP_FRAGS = 32,
> + /* deprecated sec definitions not supposed to be used */
> + SEC_DEPRECATED = 64,
> };
>
> struct bpf_sec_def {
> @@ -6575,6 +6577,10 @@ static int libbpf_preload_prog(struct bpf_program *prog,
> if (prog->type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP && (def & SEC_XDP_FRAGS))
> opts->prog_flags |= BPF_F_XDP_HAS_FRAGS;
>
> + if (def & SEC_DEPRECATED)
> + pr_warn("sec '%s' is deprecated, please take a look at https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf/wiki/Libbpf-1.0-migration-guide\n";,
> + prog->sec_name);
> +
Please add a link directly to [0]. I just added a new section listing
xdp_devmap and xdp_cpumap. I also added SEC("classifier") ->
SEC("tc"), so let's mark SEC("classifier") as deprecated as well in
the next revision?
Daniel, does that sound reasonable to you or should we leave
SEC("classifier") intact?
Let's use also the syntax consistent with the code people write.
Something like "SEC(\"%s\") is deprecated, please see
https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf/wiki/Libbpf-1.0-migration-guide#bpf-program-sec-annotation-deprecations
for details"?
[0] https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf/wiki/Libbpf-1.0-migration-guide#bpf-program-sec-annotation-deprecations
> if ((prog->type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING ||
> prog->type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM ||
> prog->type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_EXT) && !prog->attach_btf_id) {
> @@ -8618,9 +8624,11 @@ static const struct bpf_sec_def section_defs[] = {
> SEC_DEF("iter.s/", TRACING, BPF_TRACE_ITER, SEC_ATTACH_BTF | SEC_SLEEPABLE, attach_iter),
> SEC_DEF("syscall", SYSCALL, 0, SEC_SLEEPABLE),
> SEC_DEF("xdp.frags/devmap", XDP, BPF_XDP_DEVMAP, SEC_XDP_FRAGS),
> - SEC_DEF("xdp_devmap/", XDP, BPF_XDP_DEVMAP, SEC_ATTACHABLE),
> + SEC_DEF("xdp/devmap", XDP, BPF_XDP_DEVMAP, SEC_ATTACHABLE),
> + SEC_DEF("xdp_devmap/", XDP, BPF_XDP_DEVMAP, SEC_ATTACHABLE | SEC_DEPRECATED),
> SEC_DEF("xdp.frags/cpumap", XDP, BPF_XDP_CPUMAP, SEC_XDP_FRAGS),
> - SEC_DEF("xdp_cpumap/", XDP, BPF_XDP_CPUMAP, SEC_ATTACHABLE),
> + SEC_DEF("xdp/cpumap", XDP, BPF_XDP_CPUMAP, SEC_ATTACHABLE),
> + SEC_DEF("xdp_cpumap/", XDP, BPF_XDP_CPUMAP, SEC_ATTACHABLE | SEC_DEPRECATED),
> SEC_DEF("xdp.frags", XDP, BPF_XDP, SEC_XDP_FRAGS),
> SEC_DEF("xdp", XDP, BPF_XDP, SEC_ATTACHABLE_OPT | SEC_SLOPPY_PFX),
> SEC_DEF("perf_event", PERF_EVENT, 0, SEC_NONE | SEC_SLOPPY_PFX),
[...]
