Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 1 Jul 2018 11:31:47 +0100 | From | Okash Khawaja <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/3] bpf: btf: add btf json print functionality |
| |
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 02:56:49PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 06/27/2018 01:47 PM, Okash Khawaja wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 12:34:35PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > >> On 06/27/2018 12:35 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > >>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 15:27:09 -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote: > >>>> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 01:31:33PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > >> [...] > >>>>> Implementing both outputs in one series will help you structure your > >>>>> code to best suit both of the formats up front. > >>>> hex and "formatted" are the only things missing? As always, things > >>>> can be refactored when new use case comes up. Lets wait for > >>>> Okash input. > >>>> > >>>> Regardless, plaintext is our current use case. Having the current > >>>> patchset in does not stop us or others from contributing other use > >>>> cases (json, "bpftool map find"...etc), and IMO it is actually > >>>> the opposite. Others may help us get there faster than us alone. > >>>> We should not stop making forward progress and take this patch > >>>> as hostage because "abc" and "xyz" are not done together. > >>> > >>> Parity between JSON and plain text output is non negotiable. > >> > >> Longish discussion and some confusion in this thread. :-) First of all > >> thanks a lot for working on it, very useful! > > Thanks :) > > > >> My $0.02 on it is that so far > >> great care has been taken in bpftool to indeed have feature parity between > >> JSON and plain text, so it would be highly desirable to keep continuing > >> this practice if the consensus is that it indeed is feasible and makes > >> sense wrt BTF data. There has been mentioned that given BTF data can be > >> dynamic depending on what the user loads via bpf(2) so a potential JSON > >> output may look different/break each time anyway. This however could all be > >> embedded under a container object that has a fixed key like 'formatted' > >> where tools like jq(1) can query into it. I think this would be fine since > >> the rest of the (non-dynamic) output is still retained as-is and then > >> wouldn't confuse or collide with existing users, and anyone programmatically > >> parsing deeper into the BTF data under such JSON container object needs > >> to have awareness of what specific data it wants to query from it; so > >> there's no conflict wrt breaking anything here. Imho, both outputs would > >> be very valuable. > > Okay I can add "formatted" object under json output. > > > > One thing to note here is that the fixed output will change if the map > > itself changes. So someone writing a program that consumes that fixed > > output will have to account for his program breaking in future, thus > > Yes, that aspect is fine though, any program/script parsing this would need > to be aware of the underlying map type to make sense of it (e.g. per-cpu vs > non per-cpu maps to name one). But that info it could query/verify already > beforehand via bpftool as well (via normal map info dump for a given id). > > > breaking backward compatibility anyway as far as the developer is > > concerned :) > > > > I will go ahead with work on "formatted" object. > > Cool, thanks, > Daniel
hi,
couple of questions:
1. just to be sure, formatted section will be on the same level as "key" and "value"? so something like following:
$ bpftool map dump -p id 8 [{ "key": ["0x00","0x00","0x00","0x00" ], "value": [... ], "formatted": { "key": 0, "value": { "int_field": 3, "pointerfield": 2152930552, ... } } }]
2. i noticed that the ouput in v1 has all the keys and values on the same level. in v2, i'll change them so that each key-value pair is a separate object. let me know what you think.
finally, i noticed there is a map lookup command which also prints map entries. do want that to also be btf-printed in this patchset?
thanks, okash
| |