aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_legacy.h
AgeCommit message (Collapse)AuthorFilesLines
2021-12-14libbpf: Auto-bump RLIMIT_MEMLOCK if kernel needs it for BPFAndrii Nakryiko1-1/+11
The need to increase RLIMIT_MEMLOCK to do anything useful with BPF is one of the first extremely frustrating gotchas that all new BPF users go through and in some cases have to learn it a very hard way. Luckily, starting with upstream Linux kernel version 5.11, BPF subsystem dropped the dependency on memlock and uses memcg-based memory accounting instead. Unfortunately, detecting memcg-based BPF memory accounting is far from trivial (as can be evidenced by this patch), so in practice most BPF applications still do unconditional RLIMIT_MEMLOCK increase. As we move towards libbpf 1.0, it would be good to allow users to forget about RLIMIT_MEMLOCK vs memcg and let libbpf do the sensible adjustment automatically. This patch paves the way forward in this matter. Libbpf will do feature detection of memcg-based accounting, and if detected, will do nothing. But if the kernel is too old, just like BCC, libbpf will automatically increase RLIMIT_MEMLOCK on behalf of user application ([0]). As this is technically a breaking change, during the transition period applications have to opt into libbpf 1.0 mode by setting LIBBPF_STRICT_AUTO_RLIMIT_MEMLOCK bit when calling libbpf_set_strict_mode(). Libbpf allows to control the exact amount of set RLIMIT_MEMLOCK limit with libbpf_set_memlock_rlim_max() API. Passing 0 will make libbpf do nothing with RLIMIT_MEMLOCK. libbpf_set_memlock_rlim_max() has to be called before the first bpf_prog_load(), bpf_btf_load(), or bpf_object__load() call, otherwise it has no effect and will return -EBUSY. [0] Closes: https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf/issues/369 Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]
2021-11-07libbpf: Rename DECLARE_LIBBPF_OPTS into LIBBPF_OPTSAndrii Nakryiko1-0/+1
It's confusing that libbpf-provided helper macro doesn't start with LIBBPF. Also "declare" vs "define" is confusing terminology, I can never remember and always have to look up previous examples. Bypass both issues by renaming DECLARE_LIBBPF_OPTS into a short and clean LIBBPF_OPTS. To avoid breaking existing code, provide: #define DECLARE_LIBBPF_OPTS LIBBPF_OPTS in libbpf_legacy.h. We can decide later if we ever want to remove it or we'll keep it forever because it doesn't add any maintainability burden. Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <[email protected]> Acked-by: Dave Marchevsky <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]
2021-10-27libbpf: Deprecate bpf_objects_listJoe Burton1-0/+6
Add a flag to `enum libbpf_strict_mode' to disable the global `bpf_objects_list', preventing race conditions when concurrent threads call bpf_object__open() or bpf_object__close(). bpf_object__next() will return NULL if this option is set. Callers may achieve the same workflow by tracking bpf_objects in application code. [0] Closes: https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf/issues/293 Signed-off-by: Joe Burton <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]
2021-10-22libbpf: Use func name when pinning programs with LIBBPF_STRICT_SEC_NAMEStanislav Fomichev1-0/+3
We can't use section name anymore because they are not unique and pinning objects with multiple programs with the same progtype/secname will fail. [0] Closes: https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf/issues/273 Fixes: 33a2c75c55e2 ("libbpf: add internal pin_name") Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Quentin Monnet <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]
2021-09-28libbpf: Add opt-in strict BPF program section name handling logicAndrii Nakryiko1-0/+9
Implement strict ELF section name handling for BPF programs. It utilizes `libbpf_set_strict_mode()` framework and adds new flag: LIBBPF_STRICT_SEC_NAME. If this flag is set, libbpf will enforce exact section name matching for a lot of program types that previously allowed just partial prefix match. E.g., if previously SEC("xdp_whatever_i_want") was allowed, now in strict mode only SEC("xdp") will be accepted, which makes SEC("") definitions cleaner and more structured. SEC() now won't be used as yet another way to uniquely encode BPF program identifier (for that C function name is better and is guaranteed to be unique within bpf_object). Now SEC() is strictly BPF program type and, depending on program type, extra load/attach parameter specification. Libbpf completely supports multiple BPF programs in the same ELF section, so multiple BPF programs of the same type/specification easily co-exist together within the same bpf_object scope. Additionally, a new (for now internal) convention is introduced: section name that can be a stand-alone exact BPF program type specificator, but also could have extra parameters after '/' delimiter. An example of such section is "struct_ops", which can be specified by itself, but also allows to specify the intended operation to be attached to, e.g., "struct_ops/dctcp_init". Note, that "struct_ops_some_op" is not allowed. Such section definition is specified as "struct_ops+". This change is part of libbpf 1.0 effort ([0], [1]). [0] Closes: https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf/issues/271 [1] https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf/wiki/Libbpf:-the-road-to-v1.0#stricter-and-more-uniform-bpf-program-section-name-sec-handling Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <[email protected]> Acked-by: Dave Marchevsky <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]
2021-05-25libbpf: Streamline error reporting for low-level APIsAndrii Nakryiko1-0/+12
Ensure that low-level APIs behave uniformly across the libbpf as follows: - in case of an error, errno is always set to the correct error code; - when libbpf 1.0 mode is enabled with LIBBPF_STRICT_DIRECT_ERRS option to libbpf_set_strict_mode(), return -Exxx error value directly, instead of -1; - by default, until libbpf 1.0 is released, keep returning -1 directly. More context, justification, and discussion can be found in "Libbpf: the road to v1.0" document ([0]). [0] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UyjTZuPFWiPFyKk1tV5an11_iaRuec6U-ZESZ54nNTY Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <[email protected]> Acked-by: John Fastabend <[email protected]> Acked-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]
2021-05-25libbpf: Add libbpf_set_strict_mode() API to turn on libbpf 1.0 behaviorsAndrii Nakryiko1-0/+47
Add libbpf_set_strict_mode() API that allows application to simulate libbpf 1.0 breaking changes before libbpf 1.0 is released. This will help users migrate gradually and with confidence. For now only ALL or NONE options are available, subsequent patches will add more flags. This patch is preliminary for selftests/bpf changes. Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <[email protected]> Acked-by: John Fastabend <[email protected]> Acked-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]
Powered by cgit, Gruvboxed by Blaster4385.