On 11/08, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
On Thu, 8 Nov 2018 18:21:24 +0000, Quentin Monnet wrote:
@@ -79,8 +82,11 @@ DESCRIPTION contain a dot character ('.'), which is reserved for future extensions of *bpffs*.
- **bpftool prog load** *OBJ* *FILE* [**type** *TYPE*] [**map** {**idx** *IDX* | **name** *NAME*} *MAP*] [**dev** *NAME*]
- **bpftool prog { load | loadall }** *OBJ* *FILE* [**type** *TYPE*] [**map** {**idx** *IDX* | **name** *NAME*} *MAP*] [**dev** *NAME*] Load bpf program from binary *OBJ* and pin as *FILE*.
**bpftool prog load** will pin only the first bpf programfrom the *OBJ*, **bpftool prog loadall** will pin all mapsand programs from the *OBJ*.This could be improved regarding maps: with "bpftool prog load" I think we also load and pin all maps, but your description implies this is only the case with "loadall"
I don't think we pin any maps with `bpftool prog load`, we certainly load them, but we don't pin any afaict. Can you point me to the code where we pin the maps?
My bad. I read "pin" but thought "load". It does not pin them indeed, sorry about that.
Right, but I don't see much reason why prog loadall should pin maps.
It does seem convenient to have an option to pin everything, so we don't require anything else to find the ids of the maps. If we are pinning all progs, might as well pin the maps, why not? See my example in the commit message, for example, where I just hard code the expected map name. Convenient :-)
The reason to pin program(s) is to hold some reference and to be able to find them. Since we have the programs pinned we should be able to find their maps with relative ease.
$ bpftool prog show pinned /sys/fs/bpf/prog 7: cgroup_skb tag 2a142ef67aaad174 gpl loaded_at 2018-11-08T11:02:25-0800 uid 0 xlated 296B jited 229B memlock 4096B map_ids 6,7
possibly:
$ bpftool -j prog show pinned /sys/fs/bpf/prog | jq '.map_ids[0]' 6
Moreover, I think program and map names may collide making ELFs unloadable..
It doesn't sound like a big problem, sounds like a constraint we can live with.