-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 131
bpf, libbpf: use valid btf in bpf_program__set_attach_target #178
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Closed
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Master branch: d82a532 |
bpf_program__set_attach_target(prog, fd, ...) will always fail when fd = 0 (attach to a kernel symbol) because obj->btf_vmlinux is NULL and there is no way to set it (at the moment btf_vmlinux is meant to be temporary storage for use in bpf_object__load_xattr()). Fix this by using libbpf_find_vmlinux_btf_id(). At some point we may want to opportunistically cache btf_vmlinux so it can be reused with multiple programs. Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Luigi Rizzo <[email protected]>
Master branch: d82a532 |
fd5db40
to
c6b82bd
Compare
At least one diff in series https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/bpf/list/?series=360045 irrelevant now. Closing PR. |
kernel-patches-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 23, 2021
Fix BPF_CORE_READ_BITFIELD() macro used for reading CO-RE-relocatable bitfields. Missing breaks in a switch caused 8-byte reads always. This can confuse libbpf because it does strict checks that memory load size corresponds to the original size of the field, which in this case quite often would be wrong. After fixing that, we run into another problem, which quite subtle, so worth documenting here. The issue is in Clang optimization and CO-RE relocation interactions. Without that asm volatile construct (also known as barrier_var()), Clang will re-order BYTE_OFFSET and BYTE_SIZE relocations and will apply BYTE_OFFSET 4 times for each switch case arm. This will result in the same error from libbpf about mismatch of memory load size and original field size. I.e., if we were reading u32, we'd still have *(u8 *), *(u16 *), *(u32 *), and *(u64 *) memory loads, three of which will fail. Using barrier_var() forces Clang to apply BYTE_OFFSET relocation first (and once) to calculate p, after which value of p is used without relocation in each of switch case arms, doing appropiately-sized memory load. Here's the list of relevant relocations and pieces of generated BPF code before and after this patch for test_core_reloc_bitfields_direct selftests. BEFORE ===== #45: core_reloc: insn #160 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_sz --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #46: core_reloc: insn #167 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #47: core_reloc: insn #174 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #48: core_reloc: insn #178 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #49: core_reloc: insn #182 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 157: 18 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 ll 159: 7b 12 20 01 00 00 00 00 *(u64 *)(r2 + 288) = r1 160: b7 02 00 00 04 00 00 00 r2 = 4 ; BYTE_SIZE relocation here ^^^ 161: 66 02 07 00 03 00 00 00 if w2 s> 3 goto +7 <LBB0_63> 162: 16 02 0d 00 01 00 00 00 if w2 == 1 goto +13 <LBB0_65> 163: 16 02 01 00 02 00 00 00 if w2 == 2 goto +1 <LBB0_66> 164: 05 00 12 00 00 00 00 00 goto +18 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000528 <LBB0_66>: 165: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 167: 69 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u16 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ WRONG size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 168: 05 00 0e 00 00 00 00 00 goto +14 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000548 <LBB0_63>: 169: 16 02 0a 00 04 00 00 00 if w2 == 4 goto +10 <LBB0_67> 170: 16 02 01 00 08 00 00 00 if w2 == 8 goto +1 <LBB0_68> 171: 05 00 0b 00 00 00 00 00 goto +11 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000560 <LBB0_68>: 172: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 174: 79 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ WRONG size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 175: 05 00 07 00 00 00 00 00 goto +7 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000580 <LBB0_65>: 176: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 178: 71 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u8 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ WRONG size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 179: 05 00 03 00 00 00 00 00 goto +3 <LBB0_69> 00000000000005a0 <LBB0_67>: 180: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 182: 61 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ RIGHT size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 00000000000005b8 <LBB0_69>: 183: 67 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 <<= 32 184: b7 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 185: 16 02 02 00 00 00 00 00 if w2 == 0 goto +2 <LBB0_71> 186: c7 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 s>>= 32 187: 05 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 goto +1 <LBB0_72> 00000000000005e0 <LBB0_71>: 188: 77 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 >>= 32 AFTER ===== #30: core_reloc: insn #132 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #31: core_reloc: insn #134 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_sz --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 129: 18 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 ll 131: 7b 12 20 01 00 00 00 00 *(u64 *)(r2 + 288) = r1 132: b7 01 00 00 08 00 00 00 r1 = 8 ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here ^^^ ; no size check for non-memory dereferencing instructions 133: 0f 12 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 += r1 134: b7 03 00 00 04 00 00 00 r3 = 4 ; BYTE_SIZE relocation here ^^^ 135: 66 03 05 00 03 00 00 00 if w3 s> 3 goto +5 <LBB0_63> 136: 16 03 09 00 01 00 00 00 if w3 == 1 goto +9 <LBB0_65> 137: 16 03 01 00 02 00 00 00 if w3 == 2 goto +1 <LBB0_66> 138: 05 00 0a 00 00 00 00 00 goto +10 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000458 <LBB0_66>: 139: 69 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u16 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 140: 05 00 08 00 00 00 00 00 goto +8 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000468 <LBB0_63>: 141: 16 03 06 00 04 00 00 00 if w3 == 4 goto +6 <LBB0_67> 142: 16 03 01 00 08 00 00 00 if w3 == 8 goto +1 <LBB0_68> 143: 05 00 05 00 00 00 00 00 goto +5 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000480 <LBB0_68>: 144: 79 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u64 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 145: 05 00 03 00 00 00 00 00 goto +3 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000490 <LBB0_65>: 146: 71 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u8 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 147: 05 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 goto +1 <LBB0_69> 00000000000004a0 <LBB0_67>: 148: 61 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u32 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 00000000000004a8 <LBB0_69>: 149: 67 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 <<= 32 150: b7 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 151: 16 02 02 00 00 00 00 00 if w2 == 0 goto +2 <LBB0_71> 152: c7 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 s>>= 32 153: 05 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 goto +1 <LBB0_72> 00000000000004d0 <LBB0_71>: 154: 77 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 >>= 323 Fixes: ee26dad ("libbpf: Add support for relocatable bitfields") Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 24, 2021
Fix BPF_CORE_READ_BITFIELD() macro used for reading CO-RE-relocatable bitfields. Missing breaks in a switch caused 8-byte reads always. This can confuse libbpf because it does strict checks that memory load size corresponds to the original size of the field, which in this case quite often would be wrong. After fixing that, we run into another problem, which quite subtle, so worth documenting here. The issue is in Clang optimization and CO-RE relocation interactions. Without that asm volatile construct (also known as barrier_var()), Clang will re-order BYTE_OFFSET and BYTE_SIZE relocations and will apply BYTE_OFFSET 4 times for each switch case arm. This will result in the same error from libbpf about mismatch of memory load size and original field size. I.e., if we were reading u32, we'd still have *(u8 *), *(u16 *), *(u32 *), and *(u64 *) memory loads, three of which will fail. Using barrier_var() forces Clang to apply BYTE_OFFSET relocation first (and once) to calculate p, after which value of p is used without relocation in each of switch case arms, doing appropiately-sized memory load. Here's the list of relevant relocations and pieces of generated BPF code before and after this patch for test_core_reloc_bitfields_direct selftests. BEFORE ===== #45: core_reloc: insn #160 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_sz --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #46: core_reloc: insn #167 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #47: core_reloc: insn #174 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #48: core_reloc: insn #178 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #49: core_reloc: insn #182 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 157: 18 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 ll 159: 7b 12 20 01 00 00 00 00 *(u64 *)(r2 + 288) = r1 160: b7 02 00 00 04 00 00 00 r2 = 4 ; BYTE_SIZE relocation here ^^^ 161: 66 02 07 00 03 00 00 00 if w2 s> 3 goto +7 <LBB0_63> 162: 16 02 0d 00 01 00 00 00 if w2 == 1 goto +13 <LBB0_65> 163: 16 02 01 00 02 00 00 00 if w2 == 2 goto +1 <LBB0_66> 164: 05 00 12 00 00 00 00 00 goto +18 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000528 <LBB0_66>: 165: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 167: 69 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u16 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ WRONG size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 168: 05 00 0e 00 00 00 00 00 goto +14 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000548 <LBB0_63>: 169: 16 02 0a 00 04 00 00 00 if w2 == 4 goto +10 <LBB0_67> 170: 16 02 01 00 08 00 00 00 if w2 == 8 goto +1 <LBB0_68> 171: 05 00 0b 00 00 00 00 00 goto +11 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000560 <LBB0_68>: 172: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 174: 79 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ WRONG size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 175: 05 00 07 00 00 00 00 00 goto +7 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000580 <LBB0_65>: 176: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 178: 71 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u8 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ WRONG size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 179: 05 00 03 00 00 00 00 00 goto +3 <LBB0_69> 00000000000005a0 <LBB0_67>: 180: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 182: 61 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ RIGHT size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 00000000000005b8 <LBB0_69>: 183: 67 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 <<= 32 184: b7 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 185: 16 02 02 00 00 00 00 00 if w2 == 0 goto +2 <LBB0_71> 186: c7 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 s>>= 32 187: 05 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 goto +1 <LBB0_72> 00000000000005e0 <LBB0_71>: 188: 77 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 >>= 32 AFTER ===== #30: core_reloc: insn #132 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #31: core_reloc: insn #134 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_sz --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 129: 18 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 ll 131: 7b 12 20 01 00 00 00 00 *(u64 *)(r2 + 288) = r1 132: b7 01 00 00 08 00 00 00 r1 = 8 ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here ^^^ ; no size check for non-memory dereferencing instructions 133: 0f 12 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 += r1 134: b7 03 00 00 04 00 00 00 r3 = 4 ; BYTE_SIZE relocation here ^^^ 135: 66 03 05 00 03 00 00 00 if w3 s> 3 goto +5 <LBB0_63> 136: 16 03 09 00 01 00 00 00 if w3 == 1 goto +9 <LBB0_65> 137: 16 03 01 00 02 00 00 00 if w3 == 2 goto +1 <LBB0_66> 138: 05 00 0a 00 00 00 00 00 goto +10 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000458 <LBB0_66>: 139: 69 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u16 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 140: 05 00 08 00 00 00 00 00 goto +8 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000468 <LBB0_63>: 141: 16 03 06 00 04 00 00 00 if w3 == 4 goto +6 <LBB0_67> 142: 16 03 01 00 08 00 00 00 if w3 == 8 goto +1 <LBB0_68> 143: 05 00 05 00 00 00 00 00 goto +5 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000480 <LBB0_68>: 144: 79 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u64 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 145: 05 00 03 00 00 00 00 00 goto +3 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000490 <LBB0_65>: 146: 71 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u8 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 147: 05 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 goto +1 <LBB0_69> 00000000000004a0 <LBB0_67>: 148: 61 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u32 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 00000000000004a8 <LBB0_69>: 149: 67 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 <<= 32 150: b7 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 151: 16 02 02 00 00 00 00 00 if w2 == 0 goto +2 <LBB0_71> 152: c7 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 s>>= 32 153: 05 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 goto +1 <LBB0_72> 00000000000004d0 <LBB0_71>: 154: 77 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 >>= 323 Fixes: ee26dad ("libbpf: Add support for relocatable bitfields") Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 26, 2021
Fix BPF_CORE_READ_BITFIELD() macro used for reading CO-RE-relocatable bitfields. Missing breaks in a switch caused 8-byte reads always. This can confuse libbpf because it does strict checks that memory load size corresponds to the original size of the field, which in this case quite often would be wrong. After fixing that, we run into another problem, which quite subtle, so worth documenting here. The issue is in Clang optimization and CO-RE relocation interactions. Without that asm volatile construct (also known as barrier_var()), Clang will re-order BYTE_OFFSET and BYTE_SIZE relocations and will apply BYTE_OFFSET 4 times for each switch case arm. This will result in the same error from libbpf about mismatch of memory load size and original field size. I.e., if we were reading u32, we'd still have *(u8 *), *(u16 *), *(u32 *), and *(u64 *) memory loads, three of which will fail. Using barrier_var() forces Clang to apply BYTE_OFFSET relocation first (and once) to calculate p, after which value of p is used without relocation in each of switch case arms, doing appropiately-sized memory load. Here's the list of relevant relocations and pieces of generated BPF code before and after this patch for test_core_reloc_bitfields_direct selftests. BEFORE ===== #45: core_reloc: insn #160 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_sz --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #46: core_reloc: insn #167 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #47: core_reloc: insn #174 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #48: core_reloc: insn #178 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #49: core_reloc: insn #182 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 157: 18 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 ll 159: 7b 12 20 01 00 00 00 00 *(u64 *)(r2 + 288) = r1 160: b7 02 00 00 04 00 00 00 r2 = 4 ; BYTE_SIZE relocation here ^^^ 161: 66 02 07 00 03 00 00 00 if w2 s> 3 goto +7 <LBB0_63> 162: 16 02 0d 00 01 00 00 00 if w2 == 1 goto +13 <LBB0_65> 163: 16 02 01 00 02 00 00 00 if w2 == 2 goto +1 <LBB0_66> 164: 05 00 12 00 00 00 00 00 goto +18 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000528 <LBB0_66>: 165: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 167: 69 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u16 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ WRONG size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 168: 05 00 0e 00 00 00 00 00 goto +14 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000548 <LBB0_63>: 169: 16 02 0a 00 04 00 00 00 if w2 == 4 goto +10 <LBB0_67> 170: 16 02 01 00 08 00 00 00 if w2 == 8 goto +1 <LBB0_68> 171: 05 00 0b 00 00 00 00 00 goto +11 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000560 <LBB0_68>: 172: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 174: 79 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ WRONG size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 175: 05 00 07 00 00 00 00 00 goto +7 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000580 <LBB0_65>: 176: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 178: 71 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u8 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ WRONG size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 179: 05 00 03 00 00 00 00 00 goto +3 <LBB0_69> 00000000000005a0 <LBB0_67>: 180: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 182: 61 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ RIGHT size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 00000000000005b8 <LBB0_69>: 183: 67 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 <<= 32 184: b7 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 185: 16 02 02 00 00 00 00 00 if w2 == 0 goto +2 <LBB0_71> 186: c7 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 s>>= 32 187: 05 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 goto +1 <LBB0_72> 00000000000005e0 <LBB0_71>: 188: 77 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 >>= 32 AFTER ===== #30: core_reloc: insn #132 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #31: core_reloc: insn #134 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_sz --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 129: 18 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 ll 131: 7b 12 20 01 00 00 00 00 *(u64 *)(r2 + 288) = r1 132: b7 01 00 00 08 00 00 00 r1 = 8 ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here ^^^ ; no size check for non-memory dereferencing instructions 133: 0f 12 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 += r1 134: b7 03 00 00 04 00 00 00 r3 = 4 ; BYTE_SIZE relocation here ^^^ 135: 66 03 05 00 03 00 00 00 if w3 s> 3 goto +5 <LBB0_63> 136: 16 03 09 00 01 00 00 00 if w3 == 1 goto +9 <LBB0_65> 137: 16 03 01 00 02 00 00 00 if w3 == 2 goto +1 <LBB0_66> 138: 05 00 0a 00 00 00 00 00 goto +10 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000458 <LBB0_66>: 139: 69 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u16 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 140: 05 00 08 00 00 00 00 00 goto +8 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000468 <LBB0_63>: 141: 16 03 06 00 04 00 00 00 if w3 == 4 goto +6 <LBB0_67> 142: 16 03 01 00 08 00 00 00 if w3 == 8 goto +1 <LBB0_68> 143: 05 00 05 00 00 00 00 00 goto +5 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000480 <LBB0_68>: 144: 79 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u64 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 145: 05 00 03 00 00 00 00 00 goto +3 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000490 <LBB0_65>: 146: 71 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u8 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 147: 05 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 goto +1 <LBB0_69> 00000000000004a0 <LBB0_67>: 148: 61 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u32 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 00000000000004a8 <LBB0_69>: 149: 67 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 <<= 32 150: b7 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 151: 16 02 02 00 00 00 00 00 if w2 == 0 goto +2 <LBB0_71> 152: c7 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 s>>= 32 153: 05 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 goto +1 <LBB0_72> 00000000000004d0 <LBB0_71>: 154: 77 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 >>= 323 Fixes: ee26dad ("libbpf: Add support for relocatable bitfields") Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 26, 2021
Fix BPF_CORE_READ_BITFIELD() macro used for reading CO-RE-relocatable bitfields. Missing breaks in a switch caused 8-byte reads always. This can confuse libbpf because it does strict checks that memory load size corresponds to the original size of the field, which in this case quite often would be wrong. After fixing that, we run into another problem, which quite subtle, so worth documenting here. The issue is in Clang optimization and CO-RE relocation interactions. Without that asm volatile construct (also known as barrier_var()), Clang will re-order BYTE_OFFSET and BYTE_SIZE relocations and will apply BYTE_OFFSET 4 times for each switch case arm. This will result in the same error from libbpf about mismatch of memory load size and original field size. I.e., if we were reading u32, we'd still have *(u8 *), *(u16 *), *(u32 *), and *(u64 *) memory loads, three of which will fail. Using barrier_var() forces Clang to apply BYTE_OFFSET relocation first (and once) to calculate p, after which value of p is used without relocation in each of switch case arms, doing appropiately-sized memory load. Here's the list of relevant relocations and pieces of generated BPF code before and after this patch for test_core_reloc_bitfields_direct selftests. BEFORE ===== #45: core_reloc: insn #160 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_sz --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #46: core_reloc: insn #167 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #47: core_reloc: insn #174 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #48: core_reloc: insn #178 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #49: core_reloc: insn #182 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 157: 18 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 ll 159: 7b 12 20 01 00 00 00 00 *(u64 *)(r2 + 288) = r1 160: b7 02 00 00 04 00 00 00 r2 = 4 ; BYTE_SIZE relocation here ^^^ 161: 66 02 07 00 03 00 00 00 if w2 s> 3 goto +7 <LBB0_63> 162: 16 02 0d 00 01 00 00 00 if w2 == 1 goto +13 <LBB0_65> 163: 16 02 01 00 02 00 00 00 if w2 == 2 goto +1 <LBB0_66> 164: 05 00 12 00 00 00 00 00 goto +18 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000528 <LBB0_66>: 165: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 167: 69 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u16 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ WRONG size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 168: 05 00 0e 00 00 00 00 00 goto +14 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000548 <LBB0_63>: 169: 16 02 0a 00 04 00 00 00 if w2 == 4 goto +10 <LBB0_67> 170: 16 02 01 00 08 00 00 00 if w2 == 8 goto +1 <LBB0_68> 171: 05 00 0b 00 00 00 00 00 goto +11 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000560 <LBB0_68>: 172: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 174: 79 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ WRONG size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 175: 05 00 07 00 00 00 00 00 goto +7 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000580 <LBB0_65>: 176: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 178: 71 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u8 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ WRONG size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 179: 05 00 03 00 00 00 00 00 goto +3 <LBB0_69> 00000000000005a0 <LBB0_67>: 180: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 182: 61 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ RIGHT size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 00000000000005b8 <LBB0_69>: 183: 67 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 <<= 32 184: b7 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 185: 16 02 02 00 00 00 00 00 if w2 == 0 goto +2 <LBB0_71> 186: c7 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 s>>= 32 187: 05 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 goto +1 <LBB0_72> 00000000000005e0 <LBB0_71>: 188: 77 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 >>= 32 AFTER ===== #30: core_reloc: insn #132 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #31: core_reloc: insn #134 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_sz --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 129: 18 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 ll 131: 7b 12 20 01 00 00 00 00 *(u64 *)(r2 + 288) = r1 132: b7 01 00 00 08 00 00 00 r1 = 8 ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here ^^^ ; no size check for non-memory dereferencing instructions 133: 0f 12 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 += r1 134: b7 03 00 00 04 00 00 00 r3 = 4 ; BYTE_SIZE relocation here ^^^ 135: 66 03 05 00 03 00 00 00 if w3 s> 3 goto +5 <LBB0_63> 136: 16 03 09 00 01 00 00 00 if w3 == 1 goto +9 <LBB0_65> 137: 16 03 01 00 02 00 00 00 if w3 == 2 goto +1 <LBB0_66> 138: 05 00 0a 00 00 00 00 00 goto +10 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000458 <LBB0_66>: 139: 69 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u16 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 140: 05 00 08 00 00 00 00 00 goto +8 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000468 <LBB0_63>: 141: 16 03 06 00 04 00 00 00 if w3 == 4 goto +6 <LBB0_67> 142: 16 03 01 00 08 00 00 00 if w3 == 8 goto +1 <LBB0_68> 143: 05 00 05 00 00 00 00 00 goto +5 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000480 <LBB0_68>: 144: 79 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u64 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 145: 05 00 03 00 00 00 00 00 goto +3 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000490 <LBB0_65>: 146: 71 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u8 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 147: 05 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 goto +1 <LBB0_69> 00000000000004a0 <LBB0_67>: 148: 61 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u32 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 00000000000004a8 <LBB0_69>: 149: 67 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 <<= 32 150: b7 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 151: 16 02 02 00 00 00 00 00 if w2 == 0 goto +2 <LBB0_71> 152: c7 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 s>>= 32 153: 05 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 goto +1 <LBB0_72> 00000000000004d0 <LBB0_71>: 154: 77 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 >>= 323 Fixes: ee26dad ("libbpf: Add support for relocatable bitfields") Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 26, 2021
Fix BPF_CORE_READ_BITFIELD() macro used for reading CO-RE-relocatable bitfields. Missing breaks in a switch caused 8-byte reads always. This can confuse libbpf because it does strict checks that memory load size corresponds to the original size of the field, which in this case quite often would be wrong. After fixing that, we run into another problem, which quite subtle, so worth documenting here. The issue is in Clang optimization and CO-RE relocation interactions. Without that asm volatile construct (also known as barrier_var()), Clang will re-order BYTE_OFFSET and BYTE_SIZE relocations and will apply BYTE_OFFSET 4 times for each switch case arm. This will result in the same error from libbpf about mismatch of memory load size and original field size. I.e., if we were reading u32, we'd still have *(u8 *), *(u16 *), *(u32 *), and *(u64 *) memory loads, three of which will fail. Using barrier_var() forces Clang to apply BYTE_OFFSET relocation first (and once) to calculate p, after which value of p is used without relocation in each of switch case arms, doing appropiately-sized memory load. Here's the list of relevant relocations and pieces of generated BPF code before and after this patch for test_core_reloc_bitfields_direct selftests. BEFORE ===== #45: core_reloc: insn #160 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_sz --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #46: core_reloc: insn #167 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #47: core_reloc: insn #174 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #48: core_reloc: insn #178 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #49: core_reloc: insn #182 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 157: 18 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 ll 159: 7b 12 20 01 00 00 00 00 *(u64 *)(r2 + 288) = r1 160: b7 02 00 00 04 00 00 00 r2 = 4 ; BYTE_SIZE relocation here ^^^ 161: 66 02 07 00 03 00 00 00 if w2 s> 3 goto +7 <LBB0_63> 162: 16 02 0d 00 01 00 00 00 if w2 == 1 goto +13 <LBB0_65> 163: 16 02 01 00 02 00 00 00 if w2 == 2 goto +1 <LBB0_66> 164: 05 00 12 00 00 00 00 00 goto +18 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000528 <LBB0_66>: 165: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 167: 69 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u16 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ WRONG size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 168: 05 00 0e 00 00 00 00 00 goto +14 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000548 <LBB0_63>: 169: 16 02 0a 00 04 00 00 00 if w2 == 4 goto +10 <LBB0_67> 170: 16 02 01 00 08 00 00 00 if w2 == 8 goto +1 <LBB0_68> 171: 05 00 0b 00 00 00 00 00 goto +11 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000560 <LBB0_68>: 172: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 174: 79 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ WRONG size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 175: 05 00 07 00 00 00 00 00 goto +7 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000580 <LBB0_65>: 176: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 178: 71 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u8 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ WRONG size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 179: 05 00 03 00 00 00 00 00 goto +3 <LBB0_69> 00000000000005a0 <LBB0_67>: 180: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 182: 61 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ RIGHT size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 00000000000005b8 <LBB0_69>: 183: 67 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 <<= 32 184: b7 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 185: 16 02 02 00 00 00 00 00 if w2 == 0 goto +2 <LBB0_71> 186: c7 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 s>>= 32 187: 05 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 goto +1 <LBB0_72> 00000000000005e0 <LBB0_71>: 188: 77 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 >>= 32 AFTER ===== #30: core_reloc: insn #132 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #31: core_reloc: insn #134 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_sz --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 129: 18 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 ll 131: 7b 12 20 01 00 00 00 00 *(u64 *)(r2 + 288) = r1 132: b7 01 00 00 08 00 00 00 r1 = 8 ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here ^^^ ; no size check for non-memory dereferencing instructions 133: 0f 12 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 += r1 134: b7 03 00 00 04 00 00 00 r3 = 4 ; BYTE_SIZE relocation here ^^^ 135: 66 03 05 00 03 00 00 00 if w3 s> 3 goto +5 <LBB0_63> 136: 16 03 09 00 01 00 00 00 if w3 == 1 goto +9 <LBB0_65> 137: 16 03 01 00 02 00 00 00 if w3 == 2 goto +1 <LBB0_66> 138: 05 00 0a 00 00 00 00 00 goto +10 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000458 <LBB0_66>: 139: 69 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u16 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 140: 05 00 08 00 00 00 00 00 goto +8 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000468 <LBB0_63>: 141: 16 03 06 00 04 00 00 00 if w3 == 4 goto +6 <LBB0_67> 142: 16 03 01 00 08 00 00 00 if w3 == 8 goto +1 <LBB0_68> 143: 05 00 05 00 00 00 00 00 goto +5 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000480 <LBB0_68>: 144: 79 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u64 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 145: 05 00 03 00 00 00 00 00 goto +3 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000490 <LBB0_65>: 146: 71 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u8 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 147: 05 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 goto +1 <LBB0_69> 00000000000004a0 <LBB0_67>: 148: 61 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u32 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 00000000000004a8 <LBB0_69>: 149: 67 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 <<= 32 150: b7 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 151: 16 02 02 00 00 00 00 00 if w2 == 0 goto +2 <LBB0_71> 152: c7 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 s>>= 32 153: 05 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 goto +1 <LBB0_72> 00000000000004d0 <LBB0_71>: 154: 77 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 >>= 323 Acked-by: Lorenz Bauer <[email protected]> Fixes: ee26dad ("libbpf: Add support for relocatable bitfields") Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 27, 2021
Fix BPF_CORE_READ_BITFIELD() macro used for reading CO-RE-relocatable bitfields. Missing breaks in a switch caused 8-byte reads always. This can confuse libbpf because it does strict checks that memory load size corresponds to the original size of the field, which in this case quite often would be wrong. After fixing that, we run into another problem, which quite subtle, so worth documenting here. The issue is in Clang optimization and CO-RE relocation interactions. Without that asm volatile construct (also known as barrier_var()), Clang will re-order BYTE_OFFSET and BYTE_SIZE relocations and will apply BYTE_OFFSET 4 times for each switch case arm. This will result in the same error from libbpf about mismatch of memory load size and original field size. I.e., if we were reading u32, we'd still have *(u8 *), *(u16 *), *(u32 *), and *(u64 *) memory loads, three of which will fail. Using barrier_var() forces Clang to apply BYTE_OFFSET relocation first (and once) to calculate p, after which value of p is used without relocation in each of switch case arms, doing appropiately-sized memory load. Here's the list of relevant relocations and pieces of generated BPF code before and after this patch for test_core_reloc_bitfields_direct selftests. BEFORE ===== #45: core_reloc: insn #160 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_sz --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #46: core_reloc: insn #167 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #47: core_reloc: insn #174 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #48: core_reloc: insn #178 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #49: core_reloc: insn #182 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 157: 18 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 ll 159: 7b 12 20 01 00 00 00 00 *(u64 *)(r2 + 288) = r1 160: b7 02 00 00 04 00 00 00 r2 = 4 ; BYTE_SIZE relocation here ^^^ 161: 66 02 07 00 03 00 00 00 if w2 s> 3 goto +7 <LBB0_63> 162: 16 02 0d 00 01 00 00 00 if w2 == 1 goto +13 <LBB0_65> 163: 16 02 01 00 02 00 00 00 if w2 == 2 goto +1 <LBB0_66> 164: 05 00 12 00 00 00 00 00 goto +18 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000528 <LBB0_66>: 165: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 167: 69 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u16 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ WRONG size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 168: 05 00 0e 00 00 00 00 00 goto +14 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000548 <LBB0_63>: 169: 16 02 0a 00 04 00 00 00 if w2 == 4 goto +10 <LBB0_67> 170: 16 02 01 00 08 00 00 00 if w2 == 8 goto +1 <LBB0_68> 171: 05 00 0b 00 00 00 00 00 goto +11 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000560 <LBB0_68>: 172: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 174: 79 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ WRONG size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 175: 05 00 07 00 00 00 00 00 goto +7 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000580 <LBB0_65>: 176: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 178: 71 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u8 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ WRONG size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 179: 05 00 03 00 00 00 00 00 goto +3 <LBB0_69> 00000000000005a0 <LBB0_67>: 180: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 182: 61 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ RIGHT size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 00000000000005b8 <LBB0_69>: 183: 67 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 <<= 32 184: b7 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 185: 16 02 02 00 00 00 00 00 if w2 == 0 goto +2 <LBB0_71> 186: c7 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 s>>= 32 187: 05 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 goto +1 <LBB0_72> 00000000000005e0 <LBB0_71>: 188: 77 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 >>= 32 AFTER ===== #30: core_reloc: insn #132 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #31: core_reloc: insn #134 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_sz --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 129: 18 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 ll 131: 7b 12 20 01 00 00 00 00 *(u64 *)(r2 + 288) = r1 132: b7 01 00 00 08 00 00 00 r1 = 8 ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here ^^^ ; no size check for non-memory dereferencing instructions 133: 0f 12 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 += r1 134: b7 03 00 00 04 00 00 00 r3 = 4 ; BYTE_SIZE relocation here ^^^ 135: 66 03 05 00 03 00 00 00 if w3 s> 3 goto +5 <LBB0_63> 136: 16 03 09 00 01 00 00 00 if w3 == 1 goto +9 <LBB0_65> 137: 16 03 01 00 02 00 00 00 if w3 == 2 goto +1 <LBB0_66> 138: 05 00 0a 00 00 00 00 00 goto +10 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000458 <LBB0_66>: 139: 69 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u16 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 140: 05 00 08 00 00 00 00 00 goto +8 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000468 <LBB0_63>: 141: 16 03 06 00 04 00 00 00 if w3 == 4 goto +6 <LBB0_67> 142: 16 03 01 00 08 00 00 00 if w3 == 8 goto +1 <LBB0_68> 143: 05 00 05 00 00 00 00 00 goto +5 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000480 <LBB0_68>: 144: 79 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u64 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 145: 05 00 03 00 00 00 00 00 goto +3 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000490 <LBB0_65>: 146: 71 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u8 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 147: 05 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 goto +1 <LBB0_69> 00000000000004a0 <LBB0_67>: 148: 61 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u32 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 00000000000004a8 <LBB0_69>: 149: 67 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 <<= 32 150: b7 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 151: 16 02 02 00 00 00 00 00 if w2 == 0 goto +2 <LBB0_71> 152: c7 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 s>>= 32 153: 05 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 goto +1 <LBB0_72> 00000000000004d0 <LBB0_71>: 154: 77 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 >>= 323 Fixes: ee26dad ("libbpf: Add support for relocatable bitfields") Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <[email protected]> Acked-by: Lorenz Bauer <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]
kernel-patches-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 29, 2021
For functions with variable arguments like: void set_worker_desc(const char *fmt, ...) the BTF data contains void argument at the end: [4061] FUNC_PROTO '(anon)' ret_type_id=0 vlen=2 'fmt' type_id=3 '(anon)' type_id=0 When attaching function with this void argument the btf_distill_func_proto will set last btf_func_model's argument with size 0 and that will cause extra loop in save_regs/restore_regs functions and generate trampoline code like: 55 push %rbp 48 89 e5 mov %rsp,%rbp 48 83 ec 10 sub $0x10,%rsp 53 push %rbx 48 89 7d f0 mov %rdi,-0x10(%rbp) 75 f8 jne 0xffffffffa00cf007 ^^^ extra jump It's causing soft lockups/crashes probably depends on what context is the attached function called, like for set_worker_desc: watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#16 stuck for 22s! [kworker/u40:4:239] CPU: 16 PID: 239 Comm: kworker/u40:4 Not tainted 5.12.0-rc4qemu+ #178 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.14.0-1.fc33 04/01/2014 Workqueue: writeback wb_workfn RIP: 0010:bpf_trampoline_6442464853_0+0xa/0x1000 Code: Unable to access opcode bytes at RIP 0xffffffffa3597fe0. RSP: 0018:ffffc90000687da8 EFLAGS: 00000217 Call Trace: set_worker_desc+0x5/0xb0 wb_workfn+0x48/0x4d0 ? psi_group_change+0x41/0x210 ? __bpf_prog_exit+0x15/0x20 ? bpf_trampoline_6442458903_0+0x3b/0x1000 ? update_pasid+0x5/0x90 ? __switch_to+0x187/0x450 process_one_work+0x1e7/0x380 worker_thread+0x50/0x3b0 ? rescuer_thread+0x380/0x380 kthread+0x11b/0x140 ? __kthread_bind_mask+0x60/0x60 ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30 This patch is removing the void argument from struct btf_func_model in btf_distill_func_proto, but perhaps we should also check for this in JIT's save_regs/restore_regs functions. Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 29, 2021
For functions with variable arguments like: void set_worker_desc(const char *fmt, ...) the BTF data contains void argument at the end: [4061] FUNC_PROTO '(anon)' ret_type_id=0 vlen=2 'fmt' type_id=3 '(anon)' type_id=0 When attaching function with this void argument the btf_distill_func_proto will set last btf_func_model's argument with size 0 and that will cause extra loop in save_regs/restore_regs functions and generate trampoline code like: 55 push %rbp 48 89 e5 mov %rsp,%rbp 48 83 ec 10 sub $0x10,%rsp 53 push %rbx 48 89 7d f0 mov %rdi,-0x10(%rbp) 75 f8 jne 0xffffffffa00cf007 ^^^ extra jump It's causing soft lockups/crashes probably depends on what context is the attached function called, like for set_worker_desc: watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#16 stuck for 22s! [kworker/u40:4:239] CPU: 16 PID: 239 Comm: kworker/u40:4 Not tainted 5.12.0-rc4qemu+ #178 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.14.0-1.fc33 04/01/2014 Workqueue: writeback wb_workfn RIP: 0010:bpf_trampoline_6442464853_0+0xa/0x1000 Code: Unable to access opcode bytes at RIP 0xffffffffa3597fe0. RSP: 0018:ffffc90000687da8 EFLAGS: 00000217 Call Trace: set_worker_desc+0x5/0xb0 wb_workfn+0x48/0x4d0 ? psi_group_change+0x41/0x210 ? __bpf_prog_exit+0x15/0x20 ? bpf_trampoline_6442458903_0+0x3b/0x1000 ? update_pasid+0x5/0x90 ? __switch_to+0x187/0x450 process_one_work+0x1e7/0x380 worker_thread+0x50/0x3b0 ? rescuer_thread+0x380/0x380 kthread+0x11b/0x140 ? __kthread_bind_mask+0x60/0x60 ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30 This patch is removing the void argument from struct btf_func_model in btf_distill_func_proto, but perhaps we should also check for this in JIT's save_regs/restore_regs functions. Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Pull request for series with
subject: bpf, libbpf: use valid btf in bpf_program__set_attach_target
version: 3
url: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/bpf/list/?series=360045