Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-55268-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Feedback-ID: i6a694271:Fastmail
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2024 08:44:18 -0700
From: Daniel Xu <dxu@dxuuu.xyz>
To: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com>
Cc: andrii@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, ast@kernel.org, 
	quentin@isovalent.com, alan.maguire@oracle.com, martin.lau@linux.dev, eddyz87@gmail.com, 
	song@kernel.org, yonghong.song@linux.dev, john.fastabend@gmail.com, 
	kpsingh@kernel.org, sdf@google.com, haoluo@google.com, bpf@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/2] bpf: Have bpf_rdonly_cast() take a const
 pointer
Message-ID: <cn7sqqtplcle3udyxsbywfxs25wqnwxoutdf7w7cbbucmxkfsm@x67uxj6ubmzk>
References: <cover.1707080349.git.dxu@dxuuu.xyz>
 <dfd3823f11ffd2d4c838e961d61ec9ae8a646773.1707080349.git.dxu@dxuuu.xyz>
 <ZcI3Pt6Gr45wiig7@krava>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZcI3Pt6Gr45wiig7@krava>

Hi Jiri,

On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 02:42:22PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 04, 2024 at 02:06:34PM -0700, Daniel Xu wrote:
> > Since 20d59ee55172 ("libbpf: add bpf_core_cast() macro"), libbpf is now
> > exporting a const arg version of bpf_rdonly_cast(). This causes the
> > following conflicting type error when generating kfunc prototypes from
> > BTF:
> > 
> > In file included from skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c:5:
> > /home/dxu/dev/linux/tools/bpf/bpftool/bootstrap/libbpf/include/bpf/bpf_core_read.h:297:14: error: conflicting types for 'bpf_rdonly_cast'
> > extern void *bpf_rdonly_cast(const void *obj__ign, __u32 btf_id__k) __ksym __weak;
> >              ^
> > ./vmlinux.h:135625:14: note: previous declaration is here
> > extern void *bpf_rdonly_cast(void *obj__ign, u32 btf_id__k) __weak __ksym;
> 
> hi,
> I'm hiting more of these when compiling bpf selftests (attached),
> it looks like some kfuncs declarations in bpf_kfuncs.h might be in conflict

Yep, I was actually going to put that as an office hours topic on how we
want to handle that for selftests. Marking kfuncs in bpf_kfuncs.h and
bpf_experimental.h as __weak is an option. ifdef is another option.
Final option I can think of is bumping required pahole version up and
simply deleting all the kfunc definitions.

But given that pahole changes come with the feature flag, I don't see
this as a pressing issue. So I was planning on getting to that after
current outstanding patchsets (just so there's less stuff for me to
juggle).

[...]

Thanks,
Daniel