Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/3] bpf: btf: add btf json print functionality

[Okash Khawaja]

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