This patch updates bpf_design_QA.rst to clarify that the kernel
function callable by bpf program is not an ABI.
Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210330054150.2933542-1-kafai@fb.com
Some subsystems only have bare tracepoints (a tracepoint with no
associated trace event) to avoid the problem of trace events being an
ABI that can't be changed.
>From bpf presepective, bare tracepoints are what it calls
RAW_TRACEPOINT().
Since bpf assumed there's 1:1 mapping, it relied on hooking to
DEFINE_EVENT() macro to create bpf mapping of the tracepoints. Since
bare tracepoints use DECLARE_TRACE() to create the tracepoint, bpf had
no knowledge about their existence.
By teaching bpf_probe.h to parse DECLARE_TRACE() in a similar fashion to
DEFINE_EVENT(), bpf can find and attach to the new raw tracepoints.
Enabling that comes with the contract that changes to raw tracepoints
don't constitute a regression if they break existing bpf programs.
We need the ability to continue to morph and modify these raw
tracepoints without worrying about any ABI.
Update Documentation/bpf/bpf_design_QA.rst to document this contract.
Signed-off-by: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210119122237.2426878-2-qais.yousef@arm.com
The BPF helper bpf_trace_printk() no longer uses trace_printk();
it is now triggers a dedicated trace event. Hence the described
warning is no longer present, so remove the discussion of it as
it may confuse people.
Fixes: ac5a72ea5c ("bpf: Use dedicated bpf_trace_printk event instead of trace_printk()")
Signed-off-by: Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/1596801029-32395-1-git-send-email-alan.maguire@oracle.com
There has been quite a few progress around the two steps mentioned in the
answer to the following question:
Q: BPF 32-bit subregister requirements
This patch updates the answer to reflect what has been done.
v2:
- Add missing full stop. (Song Liu)
- Minor tweak on one sentence. (Song Liu)
v1:
- Integrated rephrase from Quentin and Jakub
Reviewed-by: Quentin Monnet <quentin.monnet@netronome.com>
Reviewed-by: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>
Signed-off-by: Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@netronome.com>
Acked-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Update the bpf_design_QA.rst to also reflect recent changes in
6c4fc209fc ("bpf: remove useless version check for prog load").
Suggested-by: Quentin Monnet <quentin.monnet@netronome.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
The RST formatting is done such that that when rendered or converted
to different formats, an automatic index with links are created to the
subsections.
Thus, the questions are created as sections (or subsections), in-order
to get the wanted auto-generated FAQ/QA index.
Special thanks to Quentin Monnet <quentin.monnet@netronome.com> who
have reviewed and corrected both RST formatting and GitHub rendering
issues in this file. Those commits have been squashed.
I've manually tested that this also renders nicely if included as part
of the kernel 'make htmldocs'. As the end-goal is for this to become
more integrated with kernel-doc project/movement.
Signed-off-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
This will cause them to get auto rendered, e.g. when viewing them on GitHub.
Followup patches will correct the content to be RST compliant.
Also adjust README.rst to point to the renamed files.
Signed-off-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
