Thread (11 messages) flat view 11 messages, 3 authors, 2020-02-20

Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 2/3] libbpf: Add support for dynamic program attach target

From: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@cloudflare.com>
Date: 2020-02-18 16:34:14
Also in: bpf

Hey Eelco,

On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 12:43 PM GMT, Eelco Chaudron wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Currently when you want to attach a trace program to a bpf program
the section name needs to match the tracepoint/function semantics.

However the addition of the bpf_program__set_attach_target() API
allows you to specify the tracepoint/function dynamically.

The call flow would look something like this:

  xdp_fd = bpf_prog_get_fd_by_id(id);
  trace_obj = bpf_object__open_file("func.o", NULL);
  prog = bpf_object__find_program_by_title(trace_obj,
                                           "fentry/myfunc");
  bpf_program__set_expected_attach_type(prog, BPF_TRACE_FENTRY);
  bpf_program__set_attach_target(prog, xdp_fd,
                                 "xdpfilt_blk_all");
  bpf_object__load(trace_obj)

Acked-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Eelco Chaudron <echaudro@redhat.com>
---
 tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c   |   34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
 tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h   |    4 ++++
 tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map |    2 ++
 3 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
index 514b1a524abb..0c25d78fb5d8 100644
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
[...]
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -8132,6 +8133,31 @@ void bpf_program__bpil_offs_to_addr(struct bpf_prog_info_linear *info_linear)
 	}
 }

+int bpf_program__set_attach_target(struct bpf_program *prog,
+				   int attach_prog_fd,
+				   const char *attach_func_name)
+{
+	int btf_id;
+
+	if (!prog || attach_prog_fd < 0 || !attach_func_name)
+		return -EINVAL;
+
+	if (attach_prog_fd)
+		btf_id = libbpf_find_prog_btf_id(attach_func_name,
+						 attach_prog_fd);
+	else
+		btf_id = __find_vmlinux_btf_id(prog->obj->btf_vmlinux,
+					       attach_func_name,
+					       prog->expected_attach_type);
+
+	if (btf_id <= 0)
+		return btf_id;
Looks like we can get 0 as return value on both error and success
(below)?  Is that intentional?
+
+	prog->attach_btf_id = btf_id;
+	prog->attach_prog_fd = attach_prog_fd;
+	return 0;
+}
+
 int parse_cpu_mask_str(const char *s, bool **mask, int *mask_sz)
 {
 	int err = 0, n, len, start, end = -1;
[...]
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help