Skip to content

tools/bpftool: Add/Fix support for modules btf dump #486

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
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

kernel-patches-bot
Copy link

Pull request for series with
subject: tools/bpftool: Add/Fix support for modules btf dump
version: 1
url: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=397287

@kernel-patches-bot
Copy link
Author

Master branch: 12c8a8c
series: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=397287
version: 1

Pull request is NOT updated. Failed to apply https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=397287
error message:

Cmd('git') failed due to: exit code(128)
  cmdline: git am -3
  stdout: 'Applying: tools/bpftool: Add/Fix support for modules btf dump
Using index info to reconstruct a base tree...
M	tools/lib/bpf/btf.c
M	tools/lib/bpf/btf.h
M	tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map
Falling back to patching base and 3-way merge...
Auto-merging tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map
CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map
Auto-merging tools/lib/bpf/btf.h
Auto-merging tools/lib/bpf/btf.c
CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in tools/lib/bpf/btf.c
Patch failed at 0001 tools/bpftool: Add/Fix support for modules btf dump
When you have resolved this problem, run "git am --continue".
If you prefer to skip this patch, run "git am --skip" instead.
To restore the original branch and stop patching, run "git am --abort".'
  stderr: 'error: Failed to merge in the changes.
hint: Use 'git am --show-current-patch' to see the failed patch'

conflict:

diff --cc tools/lib/bpf/btf.c
index 231b07203e3d,5900cccf82e2..000000000000
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/btf.c
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/btf.c
@@@ -1277,17 -1370,38 +1277,29 @@@ int btf__get_from_id(__u32 id, struct b
  		goto exit_free;
  	}
  
++<<<<<<< HEAD
 +	*btf = btf__new((__u8 *)(long)btf_info.btf, btf_info.btf_size);
 +	if (IS_ERR(*btf)) {
 +		err = PTR_ERR(*btf);
 +		*btf = NULL;
 +	}
++=======
+ 	/* force base_btf for kernel modules */
+ 	if (btf_info.kernel_btf && !base_btf) {
+ 		int id = btf_get_kernel_id();
+ 
+ 		/* Double check our btf is not the kernel BTF itself */
+ 		if (id != btf_info.id)
+ 			btf__get_from_id(id, &base_btf);
+ 	}
+ 	btf = btf_new(ptr, btf_info.btf_size, base_btf);
++>>>>>>> tools/bpftool: Add/Fix support for modules btf dump
  
  exit_free:
 -	free(ptr);
 -	return btf;
 -}
 -
 -int btf__get_from_id(__u32 id, struct btf **btf)
 -{
 -	struct btf *res;
 -	int btf_fd;
 -
 -	*btf = NULL;
 -	btf_fd = bpf_btf_get_fd_by_id(id);
 -	if (btf_fd < 0)
 -		return -errno;
 -
 -	res = btf_get_from_fd(btf_fd, NULL);
  	close(btf_fd);
 -	if (IS_ERR(res))
 -		return PTR_ERR(res);
 +	free(ptr);
  
 -	*btf = res;
 -	return 0;
 +	return err;
  }
  
  int btf__get_map_kv_tids(const struct btf *btf, const char *map_name,
diff --cc tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map
index 4ebfadf45b47,727daeb57f35..000000000000
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map
@@@ -337,3 -337,16 +337,19 @@@ LIBBPF_0.2.0 
  		perf_buffer__consume_buffer;
  		xsk_socket__create_shared;
  } LIBBPF_0.1.0;
++<<<<<<< HEAD
++=======
+ 
+ LIBBPF_0.3.0 {
+ 	global:
+ 		btf__base_btf;
+ 		btf__parse_elf_split;
+ 		btf__parse_raw_split;
+ 		btf__parse_split;
+ 		btf__new_empty_split;
+ 		btf__new_split;
+ 		xsk_setup_xdp_prog;
+ 		xsk_socket__update_xskmap;
+ 		btf_get_kernel_id
+ } LIBBPF_0.2.0;
++>>>>>>> tools/bpftool: Add/Fix support for modules btf dump

@kernel-patches-bot
Copy link
Author

At least one diff in series https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=397287 expired. Closing PR.

@kernel-patches-bot kernel-patches-bot deleted the series/397287=>bpf branch December 11, 2020 00:01
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 26, 2024
Like commit 1cf3bfc ("bpf: Support 64-bit pointers to kfuncs")
for s390x, add support for 64-bit pointers to kfuncs for LoongArch.
Since the infrastructure is already implemented in BPF core, the only
thing need to be done is to override bpf_jit_supports_far_kfunc_call().

Before this change, several test_verifier tests failed:

  # ./test_verifier | grep # | grep FAIL
  #119/p calls: invalid kfunc call: ptr_to_mem to struct with non-scalar FAIL
  #120/p calls: invalid kfunc call: ptr_to_mem to struct with nesting depth > 4 FAIL
  #121/p calls: invalid kfunc call: ptr_to_mem to struct with FAM FAIL
  #122/p calls: invalid kfunc call: reg->type != PTR_TO_CTX FAIL
  #123/p calls: invalid kfunc call: void * not allowed in func proto without mem size arg FAIL
  #124/p calls: trigger reg2btf_ids[reg->type] for reg->type > __BPF_REG_TYPE_MAX FAIL
  #125/p calls: invalid kfunc call: reg->off must be zero when passed to release kfunc FAIL
  #126/p calls: invalid kfunc call: don't match first member type when passed to release kfunc FAIL
  #127/p calls: invalid kfunc call: PTR_TO_BTF_ID with negative offset FAIL
  #128/p calls: invalid kfunc call: PTR_TO_BTF_ID with variable offset FAIL
  #129/p calls: invalid kfunc call: referenced arg needs refcounted PTR_TO_BTF_ID FAIL
  #130/p calls: valid kfunc call: referenced arg needs refcounted PTR_TO_BTF_ID FAIL
  #486/p map_kptr: ref: reference state created and released on xchg FAIL

This is because the kfuncs in the loaded module are far away from
__bpf_call_base:

  ffff800002009440 t bpf_kfunc_call_test_fail1    [bpf_testmod]
  9000000002e128d8 T __bpf_call_base

The offset relative to __bpf_call_base does NOT fit in s32, which breaks
the assumption in BPF core. Enable bpf_jit_supports_far_kfunc_call() lifts
this limit.

Note that to reproduce the above result, tools/testing/selftests/bpf/config
should be applied, and run the test with JIT enabled, unpriv BPF enabled.

With this change, the test_verifier tests now all passed:

  # ./test_verifier
  ...
  Summary: 777 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED

Tested-by: Tiezhu Yang <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Hengqi Chen <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Huacai Chen <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant