diff mbox series

bpf: bpftool: Setting error code in do_loader()

Message ID 20250310052555.53483-1-swnam0729@gmail.com (mailing list archive)
State Superseded
Delegated to: BPF
Headers show
Series bpf: bpftool: Setting error code in do_loader() | expand

Checks

Context Check Description
netdev/tree_selection success Not a local patch
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-PR success PR summary
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-0 success Logs for Lint
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-1 success Logs for ShellCheck
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-2 success Logs for Unittests
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-3 success Logs for Validate matrix.py
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-4 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / GCC BPF
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-6 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / build-release
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-5 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / build / build for aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-11 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / veristat-kernel
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-10 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / test (test_verifier, false, 360) / test_verifier on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-12 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / veristat-meta
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-14 success Logs for s390x-gcc / build / build for s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-15 success Logs for s390x-gcc / build-release
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-13 success Logs for s390x-gcc / GCC BPF
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-20 success Logs for s390x-gcc / veristat-meta
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-19 success Logs for s390x-gcc / veristat-kernel
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-18 success Logs for s390x-gcc / test (test_verifier, false, 360) / test_verifier on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-23 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / build / build for x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-21 success Logs for set-matrix
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-25 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_maps, false, 360) / test_maps on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-24 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / build-release
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-30 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_verifier, false, 360) / test_verifier on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-31 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / veristat-kernel / x86_64-gcc veristat_kernel
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-35 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / build-release / build for x86_64 with llvm-17-O2
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-34 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / build / build for x86_64 with llvm-17
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-41 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / veristat-meta
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-40 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / veristat-kernel
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-43 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / build / build for x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-44 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / build-release / build for x86_64 with llvm-18-O2
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-51 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / veristat-meta
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-50 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / veristat-kernel
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-7 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / test (test_maps, false, 360) / test_maps on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-22 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / GCC BPF / GCC BPF
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-26 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_progs, false, 360) / test_progs on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-28 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_progs_no_alu32_parallel, true, 30) / test_progs_no_alu32_parallel on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-27 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_progs_no_alu32, false, 360) / test_progs_no_alu32 on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-29 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_progs_parallel, true, 30) / test_progs_parallel on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-32 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / veristat-meta / x86_64-gcc veristat_meta
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-33 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / GCC BPF / GCC BPF
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-37 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / test (test_progs, false, 360) / test_progs on x86_64 with llvm-17
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-36 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / test (test_maps, false, 360) / test_maps on x86_64 with llvm-17
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-38 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / test (test_progs_no_alu32, false, 360) / test_progs_no_alu32 on x86_64 with llvm-17
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-42 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / GCC BPF / GCC BPF
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-39 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / test (test_verifier, false, 360) / test_verifier on x86_64 with llvm-17
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-45 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / test (test_maps, false, 360) / test_maps on x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-49 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / test (test_verifier, false, 360) / test_verifier on x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-8 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / test (test_progs, false, 360) / test_progs on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-9 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / test (test_progs_no_alu32, false, 360) / test_progs_no_alu32 on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-46 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / test (test_progs, false, 360) / test_progs on x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-47 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / test (test_progs_cpuv4, false, 360) / test_progs_cpuv4 on x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-48 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / test (test_progs_no_alu32, false, 360) / test_progs_no_alu32 on x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-16 success Logs for s390x-gcc / test (test_progs, false, 360) / test_progs on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-17 success Logs for s390x-gcc / test (test_progs_no_alu32, false, 360) / test_progs_no_alu32 on s390x with gcc

Commit Message

Sewon Nam March 10, 2025, 5:25 a.m. UTC
missing error code in do_loader()
bpf_object__open_file() failed, but return 0
This means the command's exit status code was successful, so make sure to return the correct error code.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/d3b5b4b4-19bb-4619-b4dd-86c958c4a367@stanley.mountain/t/#u
Closes: https://github.com/libbpf/bpftool/issues/156
Signed-off-by: nswon <swnam0729@gmail.com>
---
 tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

Comments

Quentin Monnet March 10, 2025, 1:28 p.m. UTC | #1
2025-03-10 14:25 UTC+0900 ~ nswon <swnam0729@gmail.com>
> missing error code in do_loader()
> bpf_object__open_file() failed, but return 0
> This means the command's exit status code was successful, so make sure to return the correct error code.
> 
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/d3b5b4b4-19bb-4619-b4dd-86c958c4a367@stanley.mountain/t/#u
> Closes: https://github.com/libbpf/bpftool/issues/156
> Signed-off-by: nswon <swnam0729@gmail.com>


Thanks for this!

Others may correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you should sign off with
your full name here (although it doesn't strictly have to be a full
name, the patch submission docs mention in should be a "known identity"
so I'm not sure whether a GitHub handle, for example, is acceptable).


> ---
>  tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c b/tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c
> index e71be67f1d86..641802e308f4 100644
> --- a/tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c
> +++ b/tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c
> @@ -1928,6 +1928,7 @@ static int do_loader(int argc, char **argv)
>  
>  	obj = bpf_object__open_file(file, &open_opts);
>  	if (!obj) {
> +		err = libbpf_get_error(obj);


This is the correct way to retrieve the error code, but given that
bpftool does nothing with this error code, could we instead simply
return -1 to remain consistent with the other locations where we call
bpf_object__open_file() in the tool, please?

Thanks,
Quentin
Sewon Nam March 11, 2025, 2:33 a.m. UTC | #2
Ngomhla ka-Mso, Mas 10, 2025 ngo-22:28 Quentin Monnet <qmo@kernel.org> wabhala:
>
> 2025-03-10 14:25 UTC+0900 ~ nswon <swnam0729@gmail.com>
> > missing error code in do_loader()
> > bpf_object__open_file() failed, but return 0
> > This means the command's exit status code was successful, so make sure to return the correct error code.
> >
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/d3b5b4b4-19bb-4619-b4dd-86c958c4a367@stanley.mountain/t/#u
> > Closes: https://github.com/libbpf/bpftool/issues/156
> > Signed-off-by: nswon <swnam0729@gmail.com>
>
>
> Thanks for this!
>
> Others may correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you should sign off with
> your full name here (although it doesn't strictly have to be a full
> name, the patch submission docs mention in should be a "known identity"
> so I'm not sure whether a GitHub handle, for example, is acceptable).
>
>
> > ---
> >  tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c | 1 +
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c b/tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c
> > index e71be67f1d86..641802e308f4 100644
> > --- a/tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c
> > +++ b/tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c
> > @@ -1928,6 +1928,7 @@ static int do_loader(int argc, char **argv)
> >
> >       obj = bpf_object__open_file(file, &open_opts);
> >       if (!obj) {
> > +             err = libbpf_get_error(obj);
>
>
> This is the correct way to retrieve the error code, but given that
> bpftool does nothing with this error code, could we instead simply
> return -1 to remain consistent with the other locations where we call
> bpf_object__open_file() in the tool, please?
>
> Thanks,
> Quentin


Thanks for the review!
I'll submit a v2 patch soon with the signature renamed :)
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c b/tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c
index e71be67f1d86..641802e308f4 100644
--- a/tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c
+++ b/tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c
@@ -1928,6 +1928,7 @@  static int do_loader(int argc, char **argv)
 
 	obj = bpf_object__open_file(file, &open_opts);
 	if (!obj) {
+		err = libbpf_get_error(obj);
 		p_err("failed to open object file");
 		goto err_close_obj;
 	}