Re: [PATCH bpf-next] libbpf: Fix strict mode calculation

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

 



On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 2:24 PM Mauricio Vásquez Bernal
<mauricio@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 5:05 PM Mauricio Vásquez <mauricio@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > The correct formula to get all possible values is
> > ((__LIBBPF_STRICT_LAST - 1) * 2 - 1) as stated in
> > libbpf_set_strict_mode().
> >
> > Fixes: 93b8952d223a ("libbpf: deprecate legacy BPF map definitions")
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mauricio Vásquez <mauricio@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> This patch fixes the problem but I'm not totally convinced it's the
> right approach. As a user I'd expected that `LIBBPF_STRICT_ALL &
> ~LIBBPF_STRICT_MAP_DEFINITIONS` disables
> `LIBBPF_STRICT_MAP_DEFINITIONS`, but it doesn't work because the test
> at libbpf_set_strict_mode() returns -EINVAL.
>
> What about using one of the following ideas instead?
> 1. Remove the check from libbpf_set_strict_mode().
> 2. Define `LIBBPF_STRICT_ALL` containing only the bits set of the
> existing options. `LIBBPF_STRICT_ALL = ((__LIBBPF_STRICT_LAST - 1) *
> 2)- 1`.

can't do the 2) because the point was that applications that compiled
against older libbpf_legacy.h would still be opting into latest
LIBBPF_STRICT_ALL features. I think removing entire check in
libbpf_set_strict_mode() is ok. Let's do that and simplify selftests
and bpftool by straightforward turning off of the bit with
LIBBPF_STRICT_ALL & ~LIBBPF_STRICT_MAP_DEFINITIONS.




[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