On 9/12/23 11:14 PM, thinker.li@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
+int register_bpf_struct_ops(struct bpf_struct_ops_mod *mod)
+{
+ struct bpf_struct_ops *st_ops = mod->st_ops;
+ struct bpf_verifier_log *log;
+ struct btf *btf;
+ int err;
+
+ if (mod->st_ops == NULL ||
+ mod->owner == NULL)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ log = kzalloc(sizeof(*log), GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOWARN);
+ if (!log) {
+ err = -ENOMEM;
+ goto errout;
+ }
+
+ log->level = BPF_LOG_KERNEL;
+
+ btf = btf_get_module_btf(mod->owner);
Where is btf_put called?
It is not stored anywhere in patch 2, so a bit confusing. I quickly looked at
the following patches but also don't see the bpf_put.
+ if (!btf) {
+ err = -EINVAL;
+ goto errout;
+ }
+
+ bpf_struct_ops_init_one(st_ops, btf, log);
+ err = add_struct_ops(st_ops);
+
+errout:
+ kfree(log);
+
+ return err;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(register_bpf_struct_ops);
+
+int unregister_bpf_struct_ops(struct bpf_struct_ops_mod *mod)
It is not clear to me why the subsystem needs to explicitly call
unregister_bpf_struct_ops(). Can it be done similar to the module kfunc support
(the kfunc_set_tab goes away with the btf)?
Related to this, does it need to maintain a global struct_ops array for all
kernel module? Can the struct_ops be maintained under its corresponding module
btf itself?
+{
+ struct bpf_struct_ops *st_ops = mod->st_ops;
+ int err;
+
+ err = remove_struct_ops(st_ops);
+ if (!err && st_ops->uninit)
+ err = st_ops->uninit();
+
+ return err;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(unregister_bpf_struct_ops);
