On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 3:33 PM Kui-Feng Lee <kuifeng@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Introduce bpf_link__update_struct_ops(), which will allow you to
update_map, not update_struct_ops, please update
> effortlessly transition the struct_ops map of any given bpf_link into
> an alternative.
This reads confusingly, tbh. Why not say "bpf_link__update_map()
allows to atomically update underlying struct_ops implementation for
given struct_ops BPF link" or something like this? Would it be
accurate?
>
> Signed-off-by: Kui-Feng Lee <kuifeng@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h | 1 +
> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map | 2 ++
> 3 files changed, 39 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> index a67efc3b3763..247de39d136f 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> @@ -11520,6 +11520,42 @@ struct bpf_link *bpf_map__attach_struct_ops(const struct bpf_map *map)
> return &link->link;
> }
>
> +/*
> + * Swap the back struct_ops of a link with a new struct_ops map.
> + */
> +int bpf_link__update_map(struct bpf_link *link, const struct bpf_map *map)
> +{
> + struct bpf_link_struct_ops *st_ops_link;
> + __u32 zero = 0;
> + int err, fd;
> +
> + if (!bpf_map__is_struct_ops(map) || map->fd == -1)
let's not hard-code equality like this, < 0 is better
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + st_ops_link = container_of(link, struct bpf_link_struct_ops, link);
> + /* Ensure the type of a link is correct */
> + if (st_ops_link->map_fd < 0)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + err = bpf_map_update_elem(map->fd, &zero, map->st_ops->kern_vdata, 0);
> + if (err && errno != EBUSY) {
don't use errno, err is perfectly fine to rely on
> + err = -errno;
> + free(link);
why freeing the link?...
> + return err;
> + }
> +
> + fd = bpf_link_update(link->fd, map->fd, NULL);
> + if (fd < 0) {
> + err = -errno;
> + free(link);
same... please write tests that exercise both successful and
unsuccessful scenarios
> + return err;
> + }
> +
> + st_ops_link->map_fd = map->fd;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> typedef enum bpf_perf_event_ret (*bpf_perf_event_print_t)(struct perf_event_header *hdr,
> void *private_data);
>
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h
> index 2efd80f6f7b9..5e62878d184c 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h
> @@ -695,6 +695,7 @@ bpf_program__attach_freplace(const struct bpf_program *prog,
> struct bpf_map;
>
> LIBBPF_API struct bpf_link *bpf_map__attach_struct_ops(const struct bpf_map *map);
> +LIBBPF_API int bpf_link__update_map(struct bpf_link *link, const struct bpf_map *map);
>
> struct bpf_iter_attach_opts {
> size_t sz; /* size of this struct for forward/backward compatibility */
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map
> index 11c36a3c1a9f..e83571b04c19 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map
> @@ -384,4 +384,6 @@ LIBBPF_1.1.0 {
> } LIBBPF_1.0.0;
>
> LIBBPF_1.2.0 {
> + global:
> + bpf_link__update_map;
please always rebase before posting new versions of patch set,
LIBBPF_1.2.0 is not empty anymore
> } LIBBPF_1.1.0;
> --
> 2.34.1
>
