On 3/20/23 12:56 PM, Kui-Feng Lee wrote:
struct bpf_link *bpf_map__attach_struct_ops(const struct bpf_map *map)
{
- struct bpf_struct_ops *st_ops;
- struct bpf_link *link;
- __u32 i, zero = 0;
- int err;
+ struct bpf_link_struct_ops *link;
+ __u32 zero = 0;
+ int err, fd;
if (!bpf_map__is_struct_ops(map) || map->fd == -1)
return libbpf_err_ptr(-EINVAL);
@@ -11596,31 +11637,32 @@ struct bpf_link *bpf_map__attach_struct_ops(const struct bpf_map *map)
if (!link)
return libbpf_err_ptr(-EINVAL);
- st_ops = map->st_ops;
- for (i = 0; i < btf_vlen(st_ops->type); i++) {
- struct bpf_program *prog = st_ops->progs[i];
- void *kern_data;
- int prog_fd;
+ /* kern_vdata should be prepared during the loading phase. */
+ err = bpf_map_update_elem(map->fd, &zero, map->st_ops->kern_vdata, 0);
+ if (err && err != -EBUSY) {
+ free(link);
+ return libbpf_err_ptr(err);
+ }
- if (!prog)
- continue;
+ link->link.detach = bpf_link__detach_struct_ops;
- prog_fd = bpf_program__fd(prog);
- kern_data = st_ops->kern_vdata + st_ops->kern_func_off[i];
- *(unsigned long *)kern_data = prog_fd;
+ if (!(map->def.map_flags & BPF_F_LINK)) {
hmm... This still does not look right. 'err' could be -EBUSY here and should not
be treated as success for non BPF_F_LINK case. The above 'err && err != -EBUSY'
check should also consider the BPF_F_LINK map_flags.
[ Replied on the wrong v9, so copy-and-paste the reply back to this v9. ]
+ /* w/o a real link */
+ link->link.fd = map->fd;
+ link->map_fd = -1;
+ return &link->link;
}
- err = bpf_map_update_elem(map->fd, &zero, st_ops->kern_vdata, 0);
- if (err) {
- err = -errno;
+ fd = bpf_link_create(map->fd, 0, BPF_STRUCT_OPS, NULL);
+ if (fd < 0) {
free(link);
- return libbpf_err_ptr(err);
+ return libbpf_err_ptr(fd);
}
- link->detach = bpf_link__detach_struct_ops;
- link->fd = map->fd;
+ link->link.fd = fd;
+ link->map_fd = map->fd;
- return link;
+ return &link->link;
}
typedef enum bpf_perf_event_ret (*bpf_perf_event_print_t)(struct perf_event_header *hdr,