Re: [PATCH bpf-next 4/6] libbpf: add BPF_CORE_READ/BPF_CORE_READ_INTO helpers
From: Song Liu <hidden>
Date: 2019-10-01 21:14:36
Also in:
bpf
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
On Sep 30, 2019, at 11:58 AM, Andrii Nakryiko [off-list ref] wrote: Add few macros simplifying BCC-like multi-level probe reads, while also emitting CO-RE relocations for each read. Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <redacted> --- tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h | 151 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 147 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h index a1d9b97b8e15..51e7b11d53e8 100644 --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h@@ -19,6 +19,10 @@ */#define SEC(NAME) __attribute__((section(NAME), used)) +#ifndef __always_inline +#define __always_inline __attribute__((always_inline)) +#endif + /* helper functions called from eBPF programs written in C */ static void *(*bpf_map_lookup_elem)(void *map, const void *key) = (void *) BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem;@@ -505,7 +509,7 @@ struct pt_regs;#endif /* - * BPF_CORE_READ abstracts away bpf_probe_read() call and captures offset + * bpf_core_read() abstracts away bpf_probe_read() call and captures field * relocation for source address using __builtin_preserve_access_index() * built-in, provided by Clang. *@@ -520,8 +524,147 @@ struct pt_regs; * actual field offset, based on target kernel BTF type that matches original * (local) BTF, used to record relocation. */ -#define BPF_CORE_READ(dst, src) \ - bpf_probe_read((dst), sizeof(*(src)), \ - __builtin_preserve_access_index(src)) +#define bpf_core_read(dst, sz, src) \ + bpf_probe_read(dst, sz, \ + (const void *)__builtin_preserve_access_index(src)) + +/* + * bpf_core_read_str() is a thin wrapper around bpf_probe_read_str() + * additionally emitting BPF CO-RE field relocation for specified source + * argument. + */ +#define bpf_core_read_str(dst, sz, src) \ + bpf_probe_read_str(dst, sz, \ + (const void *)__builtin_preserve_access_index(src)) + +#define ___concat(a, b) a ## b +#define ___apply(fn, n) ___concat(fn, n) +#define ___nth(_1, _2, _3, _4, _5, _6, _7, _8, _9, _10, __11, N, ...) N
We are adding many marcos with simple names: ___apply(), ___nth. So I worry they may conflict with macro definitions from other libraries. Shall we hide them in .c files or prefix/postfix them with _libbpf or something? Thanks, Song