Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/7] samples: bpf: refactor hbm program with libbpf

"Daniel T. Lee" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.kernel.vger.xdp-newbies,org.kernel.vger.bpf,org.kernel.vger.netdev
Message-ID <CAEKGpzifL18heCuioO8Qoei6a3epkrZcM=Av6qwdi2w1faTkKg@mail.gmail.com>
Sorry for the late reply.

On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 11:34 AM Martin KaFai Lau <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 03:06:11PM +0000, Daniel T. Lee wrote:
> [ ... ]
>
> >  static int run_bpf_prog(char *prog, int cg_id)
> > [ ... ]
> >       if (!outFlag)
> > -             type = BPF_CGROUP_INET_INGRESS;
> > -     if (bpf_prog_attach(bpfprog_fd, cg1, type, 0)) {
> > -             printf("ERROR: bpf_prog_attach fails!\n");
> > -             log_err("Attaching prog");
> > +             bpf_program__set_expected_attach_type(bpf_prog, BPF_CGROUP_INET_INGRESS);
> > +
> > +     link = bpf_program__attach_cgroup(bpf_prog, cg1);
> > +     if (libbpf_get_error(link)) {
> > +             fprintf(stderr, "ERROR: bpf_program__attach_cgroup failed\n");
> > +             link = NULL;
> Again, this is not needed.  bpf_link__destroy() can
> handle both NULL and error pointer.  Please take a look
> at the bpf_link__destroy() in libbpf.c
>
> > +             goto err;
> > +     }
> > [ ... ]

> > @@ -398,10 +400,10 @@ static int run_bpf_prog(char *prog, int cg_id)
> >  err:
> >       rc = 1;
> >
> > -     if (cg1)
> > -             close(cg1);
> > +     bpf_link__destroy(link);
> > +     close(cg1);
> >       cleanup_cgroup_environment();
> > -
> > +     bpf_object__close(obj);
> The bpf_* cleanup condition still looks wrong.
>
> I can understand why it does not want to cleanup_cgroup_environment()
> on the success case because the sh script may want to run test under this
> cgroup.
>
> However, the bpf_link__destroy(), bpf_object__close(), and
> even close(cg1) should be done in both success and error
> cases.
>
> The cg1 test still looks wrong also.  The cg1 should
> be init to -1 and then test for "if (cg1 == -1)".

Thanks for pointing this out.
I'll remove NULL initialize and fix this on the next patch.


--
Best,
Daniel T. Lee
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.