Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

add support for bpf_attr type #246

Closed

Conversation

sarahfujimori
Copy link
Contributor

This patch allows us to collect name, program type, and instruction
count of eBPF programs when they are verified.

Signed-off-by: Sarah Fujimori sarah.fujimori@isovalent.com

@sarahfujimori sarahfujimori requested a review from a team as a code owner July 19, 2022 00:48
Copy link
Member

@tpapagian tpapagian left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks!

Some initial comments:

  1. You should also commit the generated files (i.e. inside api/ directory type make to generate grpc files and then in the top-level directory make codegen && make generate).
  2. It seems that it lacks proper code formatting (i.e. make format).
  3. In crds/examples/ there are a couple of examples on how to use various types. It would be great if you can add an example there as well.
  4. It would be also great if we can have a simple unit test for that (but this can be also done as a followup into a separate PR).

Copy link
Member

@tpapagian tpapagian left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There is an error in checkpatch.pl which requires a header similar to this in bpf/process/types/bpfattr.h.

Other than that, this looks good to me.

This patch allows us to collect name, program type, and instruction
count of eBPF programs when they are verified.

Signed-off-by: Sarah Fujimori <sarah.fujimori@isovalent.com>
@willfindlay
Copy link
Contributor

We can ignore the checkpatch job for now, that warning is a false positive which I am fixing here #258

@willfindlay
Copy link
Contributor

willfindlay commented Jul 22, 2022

@sarahfujimori Mind running go mod tidy -compat=1.17 && go mod vendor and rebasing? The test failure we are seeing here was also allegedly fixed in #235 so a rebase on top of latest main should do the trick there too. Seems like the test failure was not fixed after all, but it's just a flake so it can be re-run if necessary.

@jrfastab
Copy link
Contributor

needs a rebase as well..

@sarahfujimori
Copy link
Contributor Author

see #275

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants