On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 10:19 AM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 10:44 PM Daniel Xu <dxu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > For bpf_object__pin_programs() there is bpf_object__unpin_programs().
> > Likewise bpf_object__unpin_maps() for bpf_object__pin_maps().
> >
> > But no bpf_object__unpin() for bpf_object__pin(). Adding the former adds
> > symmetry to the API.
> >
> > It's also convenient for cleanup in application code. It's an API I
> > would've used if it was available for a repro I was writing earlier.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Xu <dxu@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> > tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h | 1 +
> > tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map | 1 +
> > 3 files changed, 17 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> > index 4c3967d94b6d..96ff1aa4bf6a 100644
> > --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> > +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> > @@ -8376,6 +8376,21 @@ int bpf_object__pin(struct bpf_object *obj, const char *path)
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > +int bpf_object__unpin(struct bpf_object *obj, const char *path)
> > +{
> > + int err;
> > +
> > + err = bpf_object__unpin_programs(obj, path);
> > + if (err)
> > + return libbpf_err(err);
> > +
> > + err = bpf_object__unpin_maps(obj, path);
> > + if (err)
> > + return libbpf_err(err);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
>
> pin APIs predate me, and I barely ever use them, but I wonder if
> people feel fine with the fact that if any single unpin fails, all the
> other programs/maps will not be unpinned? I also wonder if the best
> effort unpinning of everything (while propagating first/last error) is
> more practical? Looking at bpf_object__pin_programs, we try unpin
> everything, even if some unpins fail.
I think the behavior of bpf_object__pin_programs() makes sense for
the error handling path, e.g. undo everything as much as possible.
bpf_object__unpin(), OTOH, is similar to bpf_object__unpin_programs()
and bpf_object__unpin_maps(), if something went wrong, we just give up.
>
> Any thoughts or preferences?
I think current version is ok, as it matches bpf_object__unpin_programs
and bpf_object__unpin_maps behavior. But I guess we can change all
3?
Thanks,
Song
