Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] selftests/bpf: Fix return value check in attach_bpf() | From | Daniel Borkmann <> | Date | Fri, 28 May 2021 22:46:23 +0200 |
| |
On 5/28/21 11:07 AM, Yu Kuai wrote: > use libbpf_get_error() to check the return value of > bpf_program__attach(). > > Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@huawei.com> > Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com> > --- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/benchs/bench_rename.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/benchs/bench_rename.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/benchs/bench_rename.c > index c7ec114eca56..b7d4a1d74fca 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/benchs/bench_rename.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/benchs/bench_rename.c > @@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ static void attach_bpf(struct bpf_program *prog) > struct bpf_link *link; > > link = bpf_program__attach(prog); > - if (!link) { > + if (libbpf_get_error(link)) { > fprintf(stderr, "failed to attach program!\n"); > exit(1); > }
Could you explain the rationale of this patch? bad2e478af3b ("selftests/bpf: Turn on libbpf 1.0 mode and fix all IS_ERR checks") explains: 'Fix all the explicit IS_ERR checks that now will be broken because libbpf returns NULL on error (and sets errno).' So the !link check looks totally reasonable to me. Converting to libbpf_get_error() is not wrong in itself, but given you don't make any use of the err code, there is also no point in this diff here.
Thanks, Daniel
| |