Display error message for missing ".BTF" section and clean up empty vmlinux.h file.
v3: - fix typo and make error message consistent. (Andrii Nakryiko) - split out perf change. v2: - remove vmlinux specific error info. - use builtin target .DELETE_ON_ERROR: to delete empty vmlinux.h
Changbin Du (2): libbpf: show error info about missing ".BTF" section bpf: makefiles: do not generate empty vmlinux.h
tools/bpf/bpftool/Makefile | 3 +++ tools/lib/bpf/btf.c | 1 + tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile | 3 +++ 3 files changed, 7 insertions(+)
Show the real problem instead of just saying "No such file or directory".
Now will print below info: libbpf: failed to find '.BTF' ELF section in /home/changbin/work/linux/vmlinux Error: failed to load BTF from /home/changbin/work/linux/vmlinux: No such file or directory
Signed-off-by: Changbin Du changbin.du@gmail.com --- tools/lib/bpf/btf.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/btf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/btf.c index 71e165b09ed5..dd2badf1a54e 100644 --- a/tools/lib/bpf/btf.c +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/btf.c @@ -990,6 +990,7 @@ static struct btf *btf_parse_elf(const char *path, struct btf *base_btf, err = 0;
if (!btf_data) { + pr_warn("failed to find '%s' ELF section in %s\n", BTF_ELF_SEC, path); err = -ENOENT; goto done; }
Hi Changbin,
On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 06:35:08AM +0800, Changbin Du wrote:
Show the real problem instead of just saying "No such file or directory".
Now will print below info: libbpf: failed to find '.BTF' ELF section in /home/changbin/work/linux/vmlinux
Recently I encountered the same issue, it could be caused by: either missing to install tool pahole or missing to enable kernel configuration CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF.
Could we give explict info for reasoning failure? Like:
"libbpf: failed to find '.BTF' ELF section in /home/changbin/work/linux/vmlinux, please install pahole and enable CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF=y for kernel building".
Error: failed to load BTF from /home/changbin/work/linux/vmlinux: No such file or directory
This log is confusing when we can find vmlinux file but without BTF section. Consider to use a separate patch to detect vmlinux not found case and print out "No such file or directory"?
Thanks, Leo
Signed-off-by: Changbin Du changbin.du@gmail.com
tools/lib/bpf/btf.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/btf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/btf.c index 71e165b09ed5..dd2badf1a54e 100644 --- a/tools/lib/bpf/btf.c +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/btf.c @@ -990,6 +990,7 @@ static struct btf *btf_parse_elf(const char *path, struct btf *base_btf, err = 0; if (!btf_data) {
pr_warn("failed to find '%s' ELF section in %s\n", BTF_ELF_SEC, path);-- 2.37.2
On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 11:45:08AM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
Hi Changbin,
On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 06:35:08AM +0800, Changbin Du wrote:
Show the real problem instead of just saying "No such file or directory".
Now will print below info: libbpf: failed to find '.BTF' ELF section in /home/changbin/work/linux/vmlinux
Recently I encountered the same issue, it could be caused by: either missing to install tool pahole or missing to enable kernel configuration CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF.
Could we give explict info for reasoning failure? Like:
"libbpf: failed to find '.BTF' ELF section in /home/changbin/work/linux/vmlinux, please install pahole and enable CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF=y for kernel building".
This is vmlinux special information and similar tips are removed from patch V2. libbpf is common for all ELFs.
Error: failed to load BTF from /home/changbin/work/linux/vmlinux: No such file or directory
This log is confusing when we can find vmlinux file but without BTF section. Consider to use a separate patch to detect vmlinux not found case and print out "No such file or directory"?
I think it's already there. If the file doesn't exist, open will fail.
Thanks, Leo
Signed-off-by: Changbin Du changbin.du@gmail.com
tools/lib/bpf/btf.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/btf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/btf.c index 71e165b09ed5..dd2badf1a54e 100644 --- a/tools/lib/bpf/btf.c +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/btf.c @@ -990,6 +990,7 @@ static struct btf *btf_parse_elf(const char *path, struct btf *base_btf, err = 0; if (!btf_data) {
pr_warn("failed to find '%s' ELF section in %s\n", BTF_ELF_SEC, path);-- 2.37.2
On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 09:31:14AM +0800, Changbin Du wrote:
[...]
Now will print below info: libbpf: failed to find '.BTF' ELF section in /home/changbin/work/linux/vmlinux
Recently I encountered the same issue, it could be caused by: either missing to install tool pahole or missing to enable kernel configuration CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF.
Could we give explict info for reasoning failure? Like:
"libbpf: failed to find '.BTF' ELF section in /home/changbin/work/linux/vmlinux, please install pahole and enable CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF=y for kernel building".
This is vmlinux special information and similar tips are removed from patch V2. libbpf is common for all ELFs.
Okay, I see. Sorry for noise.
Error: failed to load BTF from /home/changbin/work/linux/vmlinux: No such file or directory
This log is confusing when we can find vmlinux file but without BTF section. Consider to use a separate patch to detect vmlinux not found case and print out "No such file or directory"?
I think it's already there. If the file doesn't exist, open will fail.
[...]
@@ -990,6 +990,7 @@ static struct btf *btf_parse_elf(const char *path, struct btf *base_btf, err = 0; if (!btf_data) {
pr_warn("failed to find '%s' ELF section in %s\n", BTF_ELF_SEC, path);
btf_parse_elf() returns -ENOENT when ELF file doesn't contain BTF section, therefore, bpftool dumps error string "No such file or directory". It's confused that actually vmlinux is existed.
I am wondering if we can use error -LIBBPF_ERRNO__FORMAT (or any better choice?) to replace -ENOENT at here, this can avoid bpftool to outputs "No such file or directory" in this case.
Thanks, Leo
On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 3:34 AM Leo Yan leo.yan@linaro.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 09:31:14AM +0800, Changbin Du wrote:
[...]
Now will print below info: libbpf: failed to find '.BTF' ELF section in /home/changbin/work/linux/vmlinux
Recently I encountered the same issue, it could be caused by: either missing to install tool pahole or missing to enable kernel configuration CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF.
Could we give explict info for reasoning failure? Like:
"libbpf: failed to find '.BTF' ELF section in /home/changbin/work/linux/vmlinux, please install pahole and enable CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF=y for kernel building".
This is vmlinux special information and similar tips are removed from patch V2. libbpf is common for all ELFs.
Okay, I see. Sorry for noise.
Error: failed to load BTF from /home/changbin/work/linux/vmlinux: No such file or directory
This log is confusing when we can find vmlinux file but without BTF section. Consider to use a separate patch to detect vmlinux not found case and print out "No such file or directory"?
I think it's already there. If the file doesn't exist, open will fail.
[...]
@@ -990,6 +990,7 @@ static struct btf *btf_parse_elf(const char *path, struct btf *base_btf, err = 0;
if (!btf_data) {
pr_warn("failed to find '%s' ELF section in %s\n", BTF_ELF_SEC, path); err = -ENOENT;btf_parse_elf() returns -ENOENT when ELF file doesn't contain BTF section, therefore, bpftool dumps error string "No such file or directory". It's confused that actually vmlinux is existed.
I am wondering if we can use error -LIBBPF_ERRNO__FORMAT (or any better choice?) to replace -ENOENT at here, this can avoid bpftool to outputs "No such file or directory" in this case.
The only really meaningful error code would be -ESRCH, which strerror() will translate to "No such process", which is also completely confusing.
In general, I always found these strerror() messages extremely unhelpful and confusing. I wonder if we should make an effort to actually emit symbolic names of errors instead (literally, "-ENOENT" in this case). This is all tooling for engineers, I find -ENOENT or -ESRCH much more meaningful as an error message, compared to "No such file" seemingly human-readable interpretation.
Quenting, what do you think about the above proposal for bpftool? We can have some libbpf helper internally and do it in libbpf error messages as well and just reuse the logic in bpftool, perhaps?
Anyways, I've applied this patch set to bpf-next. Thanks.
Thanks, Leo
On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 04:13:13PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
[...]
@@ -990,6 +990,7 @@ static struct btf *btf_parse_elf(const char *path, struct btf *base_btf, err = 0;
if (!btf_data) {
pr_warn("failed to find '%s' ELF section in %s\n", BTF_ELF_SEC, path); err = -ENOENT;btf_parse_elf() returns -ENOENT when ELF file doesn't contain BTF section, therefore, bpftool dumps error string "No such file or directory". It's confused that actually vmlinux is existed.
I am wondering if we can use error -LIBBPF_ERRNO__FORMAT (or any better choice?) to replace -ENOENT at here, this can avoid bpftool to outputs "No such file or directory" in this case.
The only really meaningful error code would be -ESRCH, which strerror() will translate to "No such process", which is also completely confusing.
Or maybe -ENODATA (No data available) is a better choice?
Thanks, Leo
In general, I always found these strerror() messages extremely unhelpful and confusing. I wonder if we should make an effort to actually emit symbolic names of errors instead (literally, "-ENOENT" in this case). This is all tooling for engineers, I find -ENOENT or -ESRCH much more meaningful as an error message, compared to "No such file" seemingly human-readable interpretation.
Quenting, what do you think about the above proposal for bpftool? We can have some libbpf helper internally and do it in libbpf error messages as well and just reuse the logic in bpftool, perhaps?
Anyways, I've applied this patch set to bpf-next. Thanks.
On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 7:55 PM Leo Yan leo.yan@linaro.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 04:13:13PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
[...]
@@ -990,6 +990,7 @@ static struct btf *btf_parse_elf(const char *path, struct btf *base_btf, err = 0;
if (!btf_data) {
pr_warn("failed to find '%s' ELF section in %s\n", BTF_ELF_SEC, path); err = -ENOENT;btf_parse_elf() returns -ENOENT when ELF file doesn't contain BTF section, therefore, bpftool dumps error string "No such file or directory". It's confused that actually vmlinux is existed.
I am wondering if we can use error -LIBBPF_ERRNO__FORMAT (or any better choice?) to replace -ENOENT at here, this can avoid bpftool to outputs "No such file or directory" in this case.
The only really meaningful error code would be -ESRCH, which strerror() will translate to "No such process", which is also completely confusing.
Or maybe -ENODATA (No data available) is a better choice?
-ENODATA sounds good to me, yep.
Thanks, Leo
In general, I always found these strerror() messages extremely unhelpful and confusing. I wonder if we should make an effort to actually emit symbolic names of errors instead (literally, "-ENOENT" in this case). This is all tooling for engineers, I find -ENOENT or -ESRCH much more meaningful as an error message, compared to "No such file" seemingly human-readable interpretation.
Quenting, what do you think about the above proposal for bpftool? We can have some libbpf helper internally and do it in libbpf error messages as well and just reuse the logic in bpftool, perhaps?
Anyways, I've applied this patch set to bpf-next. Thanks.
On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 11:55:24AM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 04:13:13PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
[...]
@@ -990,6 +990,7 @@ static struct btf *btf_parse_elf(const char *path, struct btf *base_btf, err = 0;
if (!btf_data) {
pr_warn("failed to find '%s' ELF section in %s\n", BTF_ELF_SEC, path); err = -ENOENT;btf_parse_elf() returns -ENOENT when ELF file doesn't contain BTF section, therefore, bpftool dumps error string "No such file or directory". It's confused that actually vmlinux is existed.
I am wondering if we can use error -LIBBPF_ERRNO__FORMAT (or any better choice?) to replace -ENOENT at here, this can avoid bpftool to outputs "No such file or directory" in this case.
The only really meaningful error code would be -ESRCH, which strerror() will translate to "No such process", which is also completely confusing.
Or maybe -ENODATA (No data available) is a better choice?
Thanks, Leo
Yan, will you have a patch for this suggestion?
[snip]
On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 08:10:20PM +0800, Changbin Du wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 11:55:24AM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 04:13:13PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
[...]
> @@ -990,6 +990,7 @@ static struct btf *btf_parse_elf(const char *path, struct btf *base_btf, > err = 0; > > if (!btf_data) { > + pr_warn("failed to find '%s' ELF section in %s\n", BTF_ELF_SEC, path); > err = -ENOENT;
btf_parse_elf() returns -ENOENT when ELF file doesn't contain BTF section, therefore, bpftool dumps error string "No such file or directory". It's confused that actually vmlinux is existed.
I am wondering if we can use error -LIBBPF_ERRNO__FORMAT (or any better choice?) to replace -ENOENT at here, this can avoid bpftool to outputs "No such file or directory" in this case.
The only really meaningful error code would be -ESRCH, which strerror() will translate to "No such process", which is also completely confusing.
Or maybe -ENODATA (No data available) is a better choice?
Thanks, Leo
Yan, will you have a patch for this suggestion?
You are welcome to send a patch, otherwise, I can cook one.
Thanks, Leo
2022-12-20 16:13 UTC-0800 ~ Andrii Nakryiko andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com
On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 3:34 AM Leo Yan leo.yan@linaro.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 09:31:14AM +0800, Changbin Du wrote:
[...]
Now will print below info: libbpf: failed to find '.BTF' ELF section in /home/changbin/work/linux/vmlinux
Recently I encountered the same issue, it could be caused by: either missing to install tool pahole or missing to enable kernel configuration CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF.
Could we give explict info for reasoning failure? Like:
"libbpf: failed to find '.BTF' ELF section in /home/changbin/work/linux/vmlinux, please install pahole and enable CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF=y for kernel building".
This is vmlinux special information and similar tips are removed from patch V2. libbpf is common for all ELFs.
Okay, I see. Sorry for noise.
Error: failed to load BTF from /home/changbin/work/linux/vmlinux: No such file or directory
This log is confusing when we can find vmlinux file but without BTF section. Consider to use a separate patch to detect vmlinux not found case and print out "No such file or directory"?
I think it's already there. If the file doesn't exist, open will fail.
[...]
@@ -990,6 +990,7 @@ static struct btf *btf_parse_elf(const char *path, struct btf *base_btf, err = 0;
if (!btf_data) {
pr_warn("failed to find '%s' ELF section in %s\n", BTF_ELF_SEC, path); err = -ENOENT;btf_parse_elf() returns -ENOENT when ELF file doesn't contain BTF section, therefore, bpftool dumps error string "No such file or directory". It's confused that actually vmlinux is existed.
I am wondering if we can use error -LIBBPF_ERRNO__FORMAT (or any better choice?) to replace -ENOENT at here, this can avoid bpftool to outputs "No such file or directory" in this case.
The only really meaningful error code would be -ESRCH, which strerror() will translate to "No such process", which is also completely confusing.
In general, I always found these strerror() messages extremely unhelpful and confusing. I wonder if we should make an effort to actually emit symbolic names of errors instead (literally, "-ENOENT" in this case). This is all tooling for engineers, I find -ENOENT or -ESRCH much more meaningful as an error message, compared to "No such file" seemingly human-readable interpretation.
Quenting, what do you think about the above proposal for bpftool? We can have some libbpf helper internally and do it in libbpf error messages as well and just reuse the logic in bpftool, perhaps?
Apologies for the delay. What you're proposing is to replace all messages currently looking like this:
$ bpftool prog Error: can't get next program: Operation not permitted
by:
$ bpftool prog Error: can't get next program: -EPERM
Do I understand correctly?
I think the strerror() messages are helpful in some occasions (they _are_ more human-friendly to many users), but it's also true that they're not always precise. With bpftool, "Invalid argument" is a classic when the program doesn't load, and may lead to confusion with the args passed to bpftool on the command line. Then there are the other corner cases like the one discussed in this thread. So, why not.
If we do change, yeah I'd rather have as much of this handling in libbpf itself, and then adjust bpftool to handle the remaining cases, for consistency.
Quentin
On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 7:03 AM Quentin Monnet quentin@isovalent.com wrote:
2022-12-20 16:13 UTC-0800 ~ Andrii Nakryiko andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com
On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 3:34 AM Leo Yan leo.yan@linaro.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 09:31:14AM +0800, Changbin Du wrote:
[...]
Now will print below info: libbpf: failed to find '.BTF' ELF section in /home/changbin/work/linux/vmlinux
Recently I encountered the same issue, it could be caused by: either missing to install tool pahole or missing to enable kernel configuration CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF.
Could we give explict info for reasoning failure? Like:
"libbpf: failed to find '.BTF' ELF section in /home/changbin/work/linux/vmlinux, please install pahole and enable CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF=y for kernel building".
This is vmlinux special information and similar tips are removed from patch V2. libbpf is common for all ELFs.
Okay, I see. Sorry for noise.
Error: failed to load BTF from /home/changbin/work/linux/vmlinux: No such file or directory
This log is confusing when we can find vmlinux file but without BTF section. Consider to use a separate patch to detect vmlinux not found case and print out "No such file or directory"?
I think it's already there. If the file doesn't exist, open will fail.
[...]
@@ -990,6 +990,7 @@ static struct btf *btf_parse_elf(const char *path, struct btf *base_btf, err = 0;
if (!btf_data) {
pr_warn("failed to find '%s' ELF section in %s\n", BTF_ELF_SEC, path); err = -ENOENT;btf_parse_elf() returns -ENOENT when ELF file doesn't contain BTF section, therefore, bpftool dumps error string "No such file or directory". It's confused that actually vmlinux is existed.
I am wondering if we can use error -LIBBPF_ERRNO__FORMAT (or any better choice?) to replace -ENOENT at here, this can avoid bpftool to outputs "No such file or directory" in this case.
The only really meaningful error code would be -ESRCH, which strerror() will translate to "No such process", which is also completely confusing.
In general, I always found these strerror() messages extremely unhelpful and confusing. I wonder if we should make an effort to actually emit symbolic names of errors instead (literally, "-ENOENT" in this case). This is all tooling for engineers, I find -ENOENT or -ESRCH much more meaningful as an error message, compared to "No such file" seemingly human-readable interpretation.
Quenting, what do you think about the above proposal for bpftool? We can have some libbpf helper internally and do it in libbpf error messages as well and just reuse the logic in bpftool, perhaps?
Apologies for the delay. What you're proposing is to replace all messages currently looking like this:
$ bpftool prog Error: can't get next program: Operation not permittedby:
$ bpftool prog Error: can't get next program: -EPERMDo I understand correctly?
yep, that's what I had in mind
I think the strerror() messages are helpful in some occasions (they _are_ more human-friendly to many users), but it's also true that they're not always precise. With bpftool, "Invalid argument" is a classic when the program doesn't load, and may lead to confusion with the args passed to bpftool on the command line. Then there are the other corner cases like the one discussed in this thread. So, why not.
maybe the right approach would be to have both symbolic error name and its human-readable representation, so for example above
Error: can't get next program: [-EPERM] Operation not permitted
or something like that? And if error value is unknown, just keep it as integer: "[-5555]" ?
If we do change, yeah I'd rather have as much of this handling in libbpf itself, and then adjust bpftool to handle the remaining cases, for consistency.
we can teach libbpf_strerror_r() to do this and if bpftool is going to use it consistently then it would get the benefit automatically
Quentin
2023-01-03 15:46 UTC-0800 ~ Andrii Nakryiko andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com
On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 7:03 AM Quentin Monnet quentin@isovalent.com wrote:
2022-12-20 16:13 UTC-0800 ~ Andrii Nakryiko andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com
On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 3:34 AM Leo Yan leo.yan@linaro.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 09:31:14AM +0800, Changbin Du wrote:
[...]
> Now will print below info: > libbpf: failed to find '.BTF' ELF section in /home/changbin/work/linux/vmlinux
Recently I encountered the same issue, it could be caused by: either missing to install tool pahole or missing to enable kernel configuration CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF.
Could we give explict info for reasoning failure? Like:
"libbpf: failed to find '.BTF' ELF section in /home/changbin/work/linux/vmlinux, please install pahole and enable CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF=y for kernel building".
This is vmlinux special information and similar tips are removed from patch V2. libbpf is common for all ELFs.
Okay, I see. Sorry for noise.
> Error: failed to load BTF from /home/changbin/work/linux/vmlinux: No such file or directory
This log is confusing when we can find vmlinux file but without BTF section. Consider to use a separate patch to detect vmlinux not found case and print out "No such file or directory"?
I think it's already there. If the file doesn't exist, open will fail.
[...]
> @@ -990,6 +990,7 @@ static struct btf *btf_parse_elf(const char *path, struct btf *base_btf, > err = 0; > > if (!btf_data) { > + pr_warn("failed to find '%s' ELF section in %s\n", BTF_ELF_SEC, path); > err = -ENOENT;
btf_parse_elf() returns -ENOENT when ELF file doesn't contain BTF section, therefore, bpftool dumps error string "No such file or directory". It's confused that actually vmlinux is existed.
I am wondering if we can use error -LIBBPF_ERRNO__FORMAT (or any better choice?) to replace -ENOENT at here, this can avoid bpftool to outputs "No such file or directory" in this case.
The only really meaningful error code would be -ESRCH, which strerror() will translate to "No such process", which is also completely confusing.
In general, I always found these strerror() messages extremely unhelpful and confusing. I wonder if we should make an effort to actually emit symbolic names of errors instead (literally, "-ENOENT" in this case). This is all tooling for engineers, I find -ENOENT or -ESRCH much more meaningful as an error message, compared to "No such file" seemingly human-readable interpretation.
Quenting, what do you think about the above proposal for bpftool? We can have some libbpf helper internally and do it in libbpf error messages as well and just reuse the logic in bpftool, perhaps?
Apologies for the delay. What you're proposing is to replace all messages currently looking like this:
$ bpftool prog Error: can't get next program: Operation not permittedby:
$ bpftool prog Error: can't get next program: -EPERMDo I understand correctly?
yep, that's what I had in mind
I think the strerror() messages are helpful in some occasions (they _are_ more human-friendly to many users), but it's also true that they're not always precise. With bpftool, "Invalid argument" is a classic when the program doesn't load, and may lead to confusion with the args passed to bpftool on the command line. Then there are the other corner cases like the one discussed in this thread. So, why not.
maybe the right approach would be to have both symbolic error name and its human-readable representation, so for example above
Error: can't get next program: [-EPERM] Operation not permitted
or something like that? And if error value is unknown, just keep it as integer: "[-5555]" ?
That would be great, we'd have both the error name for savvy users and the (more or less accurate) interpretation for others.
If we do change, yeah I'd rather have as much of this handling in libbpf itself, and then adjust bpftool to handle the remaining cases, for consistency.
we can teach libbpf_strerror_r() to do this and if bpftool is going to use it consistently then it would get the benefit automatically
Sounds good to me.
Remove the empty vmlinux.h if bpftool failed to dump btf info. The empty vmlinux.h can hide real error when reading output of make.
This is done by adding .DELETE_ON_ERROR special target in related makefiles.
Signed-off-by: Changbin Du changbin.du@gmail.com --- tools/bpf/bpftool/Makefile | 3 +++ tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile | 3 +++ 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/bpf/bpftool/Makefile b/tools/bpf/bpftool/Makefile index 787b857d3fb5..313fd1b09189 100644 --- a/tools/bpf/bpftool/Makefile +++ b/tools/bpf/bpftool/Makefile @@ -289,3 +289,6 @@ FORCE: .PHONY: all FORCE bootstrap clean install-bin install uninstall .PHONY: doc doc-clean doc-install doc-uninstall .DEFAULT_GOAL := all + +# Delete partially updated (corrupted) files on error +.DELETE_ON_ERROR: diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile index c22c43bbee19..205e8c3c346a 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile @@ -626,3 +626,6 @@ EXTRA_CLEAN := $(TEST_CUSTOM_PROGS) $(SCRATCH_DIR) $(HOST_SCRATCH_DIR) \ liburandom_read.so)
.PHONY: docs docs-clean + +# Delete partially updated (corrupted) files on error +.DELETE_ON_ERROR:
On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 06:35:09AM +0800, Changbin Du wrote:
Remove the empty vmlinux.h if bpftool failed to dump btf info. The empty vmlinux.h can hide real error when reading output of make.
This is done by adding .DELETE_ON_ERROR special target in related makefiles.
We need to handle the same case for perf building, its makefile linux/tools/perf/Makefile.perf also uses bpftool to generate vmlinux.h, see: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/tool...
Please consider to use a separate patch to add the same change in Makefile.perf?
Thanks, Leo
Signed-off-by: Changbin Du changbin.du@gmail.com
tools/bpf/bpftool/Makefile | 3 +++ tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile | 3 +++ 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/bpf/bpftool/Makefile b/tools/bpf/bpftool/Makefile index 787b857d3fb5..313fd1b09189 100644 --- a/tools/bpf/bpftool/Makefile +++ b/tools/bpf/bpftool/Makefile @@ -289,3 +289,6 @@ FORCE: .PHONY: all FORCE bootstrap clean install-bin install uninstall .PHONY: doc doc-clean doc-install doc-uninstall .DEFAULT_GOAL := all
+# Delete partially updated (corrupted) files on error +.DELETE_ON_ERROR: diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile index c22c43bbee19..205e8c3c346a 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile @@ -626,3 +626,6 @@ EXTRA_CLEAN := $(TEST_CUSTOM_PROGS) $(SCRATCH_DIR) $(HOST_SCRATCH_DIR) \ liburandom_read.so) .PHONY: docs docs-clean
+# Delete partially updated (corrupted) files on error
+.DELETE_ON_ERROR:
2.37.2
On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 11:59:38AM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 06:35:09AM +0800, Changbin Du wrote:
Remove the empty vmlinux.h if bpftool failed to dump btf info. The empty vmlinux.h can hide real error when reading output of make.
This is done by adding .DELETE_ON_ERROR special target in related makefiles.
We need to handle the same case for perf building, its makefile linux/tools/perf/Makefile.perf also uses bpftool to generate vmlinux.h, see: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/tool...
Please consider to use a separate patch to add the same change in Makefile.perf?
It's alreay there. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20221217225151.90387-1-changbin.du@gmail.com/T/
Thanks, Leo
Signed-off-by: Changbin Du changbin.du@gmail.com
tools/bpf/bpftool/Makefile | 3 +++ tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile | 3 +++ 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/bpf/bpftool/Makefile b/tools/bpf/bpftool/Makefile index 787b857d3fb5..313fd1b09189 100644 --- a/tools/bpf/bpftool/Makefile +++ b/tools/bpf/bpftool/Makefile @@ -289,3 +289,6 @@ FORCE: .PHONY: all FORCE bootstrap clean install-bin install uninstall .PHONY: doc doc-clean doc-install doc-uninstall .DEFAULT_GOAL := all
+# Delete partially updated (corrupted) files on error +.DELETE_ON_ERROR: diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile index c22c43bbee19..205e8c3c346a 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile @@ -626,3 +626,6 @@ EXTRA_CLEAN := $(TEST_CUSTOM_PROGS) $(SCRATCH_DIR) $(HOST_SCRATCH_DIR) \ liburandom_read.so) .PHONY: docs docs-clean
+# Delete partially updated (corrupted) files on error
+.DELETE_ON_ERROR:
2.37.2
2022-12-18 06:35 UTC+0800 ~ Changbin Du changbin.du@gmail.com
Remove the empty vmlinux.h if bpftool failed to dump btf info. The empty vmlinux.h can hide real error when reading output of make.
This is done by adding .DELETE_ON_ERROR special target in related makefiles.
Signed-off-by: Changbin Du changbin.du@gmail.com
tools/bpf/bpftool/Makefile | 3 +++ tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile | 3 +++ 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/bpf/bpftool/Makefile b/tools/bpf/bpftool/Makefile index 787b857d3fb5..313fd1b09189 100644 --- a/tools/bpf/bpftool/Makefile +++ b/tools/bpf/bpftool/Makefile @@ -289,3 +289,6 @@ FORCE: .PHONY: all FORCE bootstrap clean install-bin install uninstall .PHONY: doc doc-clean doc-install doc-uninstall .DEFAULT_GOAL := all
+# Delete partially updated (corrupted) files on error +.DELETE_ON_ERROR:
Acked-by: Quentin Monnet quentin@isovalent.com
Thanks!
Hello:
This series was applied to bpf/bpf-next.git (master) by Andrii Nakryiko andrii@kernel.org:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2022 06:35:07 +0800 you wrote:
Display error message for missing ".BTF" section and clean up empty vmlinux.h file.
v3:
- fix typo and make error message consistent. (Andrii Nakryiko)
- split out perf change.
v2:
- remove vmlinux specific error info.
- use builtin target .DELETE_ON_ERROR: to delete empty vmlinux.h
[...]
Here is the summary with links: - [v3,1/2] libbpf: show error info about missing ".BTF" section https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf-next/c/e6b4e1d759d3 - [v3,2/2] bpf: makefiles: do not generate empty vmlinux.h https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf-next/c/e7f0d5cdd023
You are awesome, thank you!
linux-kselftest-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Andrii Nakryiko -
Changbin Du -
Leo Yan -
patchwork-bot+netdevbpf＠kernel.org -
Quentin Monnet