lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jul]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: pahole + BTF was: Re: [Question] bpf: about a new 'tools/bpf/bpf_dwarf2btf'
From
Date


On 07/26/2018 09:26 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 07/25/2018 10:11 PM, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 04:21:31AM +0900, Taeung Song wrote:
>>> On 07/26/2018 03:27 AM, Taeung Song wrote:
>>>> On 07/26/2018 02:52 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>>>>> Em Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 02:23:32AM +0900, Taeung Song escreveu:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Building bpf programs with .BTF section,
>>>>>> I thought it'd be better to convert dwarf info to .BTF by
>>>>>> a new tool such as 'tools/bpf/bpf_dwarf2btf' instead of pahole
>>>>>> in the future.
>>>>>> Currently for bpf binary that have .BTF section,
>>>>>> we need to use pahole from https://github.com/iamkafai/pahole/tree/btf
>>>>>> with the command line such as "pahole -J bpf_prog.o".
>>>>>> I think it is great but if implementing new 'bpf_dwarf2btf'
>>>>>> (dwarf parsing + btf encoder code written by Martin KaFai Lau on
>>>>>> the pahole project i.e. btf.h, btf_encoder.c, btf_encoder.h,
>>>>>> libbtf.c, libbtf.h),
>>>>>> BPF developers would more easily use functionalities based on BTF.
>>>>>
>>>>> What would be easier exactly? Not having to install a package but build
>>>>> it from the kernel sources?
>>>>>
>>>>> Many kernel developers already have pahole installed for other uses, so
>>>>> no need to install anything.
>>>>
>>>> Understood, but I think there are many non-kernel developers
>>>> developing BPF programs and they mightn't have or use pahole.
>>>>
>>>> So, if providing the 'dwarf2btf' feature on tools/bpf or tools/bpf/bpftool,
>>>> non-kernel developers can also more easily build bpf prog with .BPF, no ?
>> Some quick thoughts,
>> IMO, I suspect if it is in the distro's pahole package, it should be easy
>> enough for kernel and non kernel developer to install.
>> BTF usage is still evolving, we might re-evaluate going forward but at this
>> point I think leveraging pahole's existing capability is a good option.
>
> Agree, if there will be a future use-case where pahole might not be well-fitting,
> we could add it to bpftool then so I wouldn't rule it out, but for the functionality
> right now it seems good to reuse it. Presumably BPF developers have it installed
> anyway to inspect struct padding from BPF obj files.
>
> Thanks,
> Daniel
>

OK, I got it, thanks for answering my question so detailedly

Thanks,
Taeung

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-07-26 08:05    [W:0.043 / U:0.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site