On 29/07/2022 07:18, Manu Bretelle wrote: > From: chantra <chantr4@xxxxxxxxx> > > bpftool was limiting the length of names to > [BPF_OBJ_NAME_LEN](https://github.com/libbpf/bpftool/blob/2d7bba1e8c17dd0422879c856cda66723b209952/src/common.c#L823-L826). > > Since > https://github.com/libbpf/bpftool/commit/61833a284f48b90f6802c141c8356de64bb41e10 > we can get the full program name from BTF. > > This diffs remove the restriction of name length when running `bpftool -> "This patch removes"? > prog show name ${name}`. > > Test: > Tested against some internal program names that were longer than > `BPF_OBJ_NAME_LEN`, here a redacted example of what was ran to test. > > ``` > $ sudo bpftool prog show name some_long_program_name > Error: can't parse name > $ sudo ./bpftool prog show name some_long_program_name > 123456789: tracing name some_long_program_name tag taghexa gpl .... > ... > ... > ... > ``` Thanks a lot for the patch! The suggested change looks good, but the code and the patch themselves need some adjustments. Regarding your commit object (and email subject): Please prefix with the component that you update. For your next version, this should be: [PATCH bpf-next v2] bpftool: Remove BPF_OBJ_NAME_LEN... For the commit description, please avoid external links (GitHub). Prefer function names (we can grep for them) or commit references [0]. I would also recommend against too much Markdown mark-up, the triple quotes could be removed and the snippet indented instead. Your commit is also missing your Signed-off-by tag in its description, you will need to add it [1]. [0] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html?highlight=signed+off#describe-your-changes [1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html?highlight=signed+off#sign-your-work-the-developer-s-certificate-of-origin > --- > tools/bpf/bpftool/common.c | 18 ++++++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/bpf/bpftool/common.c b/tools/bpf/bpftool/common.c > index 067e9ea59e3b..bc9017877296 100644 > --- a/tools/bpf/bpftool/common.c > +++ b/tools/bpf/bpftool/common.c > @@ -722,6 +722,7 @@ print_all_levels(__maybe_unused enum libbpf_print_level level, > > static int prog_fd_by_nametag(void *nametag, int **fds, bool tag) > { > + char prog_name[MAX_PROG_FULL_NAME]; > unsigned int id = 0; > int fd, nb_fds = 0; > void *tmp; > @@ -754,12 +755,21 @@ static int prog_fd_by_nametag(void *nametag, int **fds, bool tag) > goto err_close_fd; > } > > - if ((tag && memcmp(nametag, info.tag, BPF_TAG_SIZE)) || > - (!tag && strncmp(nametag, info.name, BPF_OBJ_NAME_LEN))) { > + if (tag && memcmp(nametag, info.tag, BPF_TAG_SIZE)) { > close(fd); > continue; > } > > + > + Too many blank lines, please use just one. > + if (!tag) { > + get_prog_full_name(&info, fd, prog_name, sizeof(prog_name)); > + if (strcmp(nametag, prog_name)) { strncmp(), please > + close(fd); > + continue; > + } > + } > + > if (nb_fds > 0) { > tmp = realloc(*fds, (nb_fds + 1) * sizeof(int)); > if (!tmp) { > @@ -820,10 +830,6 @@ int prog_parse_fds(int *argc, char ***argv, int **fds) > NEXT_ARGP(); > > name = **argv; > - if (strlen(name) > BPF_OBJ_NAME_LEN - 1) { > - p_err("can't parse name"); > - return -1; > - } Why removing the check? Just update the bound to MAX_PROG_FULL_NAME - 1? > NEXT_ARGP(); > > return prog_fd_by_nametag(name, fds, false);
