On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 2:45 PM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 2:09 PM Song Liu <song@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 11:40 AM Andrii Nakryiko
> > <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > +__bpf_kfunc struct path *bpf_iter_path_next(struct bpf_iter_path *it)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct bpf_iter_path_kern *kit = (void *)it;
> > > > + struct path root = {};
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!path_walk_parent(&kit->path, &root))
> > > > + return NULL;
> > > > + return &kit->path;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +__bpf_kfunc void bpf_iter_path_destroy(struct bpf_iter_path *it)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct bpf_iter_path_kern *kit = (void *)it;
> > > > +
> > > > + path_put(&kit->path);
> > >
> > > note, destroy() will be called even if construction of iterator fails
> > > or we exhausted iterator. So you need to make sure that you have
> > > bpf_iter_path state where you can detect that there is no path present
> > > and skip path_put().
> >
> > In bpf_iter_path_next(), when path_walk_parent() returns false, we
> > still hold reference to kit->path, then _destroy() will release it. So we
> > should be fine, no?
>
> you still need to handle iterators that failed to be initialized,
> though? And one can argue that if path_walk_parent() returns false, we
> need to put that last path before returning NULL, no?
kit->path is zero'ed on initialization failures, so we can path_put() it
safely. For _next() returns NULL case, we can either put kit->path
in _destroy(), which is the logic now, or put kit->path in the last
_next() call and make _destroy() a no-op in that case. I don't have
a strong preference either way.
Thanks,
Song
