Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220713214246.2545204-1-jevburton.kernel@gmail.com>
 <CAKH8qBtkgsQ9snhno3aYnhyc8vG2a0xhgg_sCb4KFhcQt+gfqA@mail.gmail.com>
 <Ys9IBYKqlTzkf3jA@google.com> <CAKH8qBs7FHAT9ZW+xAfJ=3gr8ZhZ7fMQO6K2Cmw8FuKGa7+GPQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKH8qBs7FHAT9ZW+xAfJ=3gr8ZhZ7fMQO6K2Cmw8FuKGa7+GPQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 13 Jul 2022 22:54:01 -0700
Message-ID: <CAEf4BzZTJ__PKs6GiDccjC+pKbGFeck2AV8UJ+iJEcLPMkdjTA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] libbpf: Add bpf_map__set_name()
To:     Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>
Cc:     Joe Burton <jevburton@google.com>,
        Joe Burton <jevburton.kernel@gmail.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
        Song Liu <song@kernel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>, Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 4:02 PM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 3:32 PM Joe Burton <jevburton@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Asked you internally, but not sure I follow. Can you share more on why
> > > the following won't fix it for us:
> > >
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/OSZP286MB1725CEA1C95C5CB8E7CCC53FB8869@OSZP286MB1725.JPNP286.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM/
> > >
> > > ?
> > >
> > > The idea seems to be to get the supplied map name (from the obj)
> > > instead of using pin name? So why is it not enough?
> >
> > You're correct, this approach also resolves the issue. No need for this
> > new API.
>
> SG! New helper might still be useful, but I'm not sure how safe that
> is, given how much we use the name internally in libbpf
> (name/pin_path). So it might be safer to use Anquan's approach for
> now.
>
> Andrii, any concerns with [1] ? Should we pull that in?

I already applied [1]. I'm uncomfortable with bpf_map__set_name() in
general, because map name is tied into BTF and other things, so it
needs much more careful thinking how to support sudden map renames.
But given the problem was with bpf_map__reuse_fd(), I think [1] solves
it already.


>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/OSZP286MB1725CEA1C95C5CB8E7CCC53FB8869@OSZP286MB1725.JPNP286.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM/