| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <559F3709.2080302@huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 11:07:53 +0800
From: "Wangnan (F)" <wangnan0@...wei.com>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
CC: <ast@...mgrid.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<lizefan@...wei.com>, <hekuang@...wei.com>, <xiakaixu@...wei.com>,
<pi3orama@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/39] bpf tools: Collect eBPF programs from their own
sections
On 2015/7/9 23:58, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 12:35:05PM +0000, Wang Nan escreveu:
>> This patch collects all programs in an object file into an array of
>> 'struct bpf_program' for further processing. That structure is for
>> representing each eBPF program. 'bpf_prog' should be a better name, but
>> it has been used by linux/filter.h. Although it is a kernel space name,
>> I still prefer to call it 'bpf_program' to prevent possible confusion.
>>
>> bpf_program__new() creates a new 'struct bpf_program' object. It first
>> init a variable in stack using __bpf_program__new(), then if success,
>> enlarges obj->programs array and copy the new object in.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wang Nan <wangnan0@...wei.com>
>> Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
>> Cc: Brendan Gregg <brendan.d.gregg@...il.com>
>> Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
>> Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
>> Cc: He Kuang <hekuang@...wei.com>
>> Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
>> Cc: Kaixu Xia <xiakaixu@...wei.com>
>> Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
>> Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
>> Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
>> Cc: Zefan Li <lizefan@...wei.com>
>> Cc: pi3orama@....com
>> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1435716878-189507-13-git-send-email-wangnan0@huawei.com
>> Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
>> ---
>> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 117 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 117 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
>> index 9b016c0..3b717de 100644
>> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
>> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
>> @@ -78,12 +78,27 @@ void libbpf_set_print(libbpf_print_fn_t warn,
>> # define LIBBPF_ELF_C_READ_MMAP ELF_C_READ
>> #endif
>>
>> +/*
>> + * bpf_prog should be a better name but it has been used in
>> + * linux/filter.h.
>> + */
>> +struct bpf_program {
>> + /* Index in elf obj file, for relocation use. */
>> + int idx;
>> + char *section_name;
>> + struct bpf_insn *insns;
>> + size_t insns_cnt;
>> +};
>> +
>> struct bpf_object {
>> char license[64];
>> u32 kern_version;
>> void *maps_buf;
>> size_t maps_buf_sz;
>>
>> + struct bpf_program *programs;
>> + size_t nr_programs;
>> +
>> /*
>> * Information when doing elf related work. Only valid if fd
>> * is valid.
>> @@ -100,6 +115,84 @@ struct bpf_object {
>> };
>> #define obj_elf_valid(o) ((o)->efile.elf)
>>
>> +static void bpf_program__clear(struct bpf_program *prog)
>> +{
>> + if (!prog)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + zfree(&prog->section_name);
>> + zfree(&prog->insns);
>> + prog->insns_cnt = 0;
>> + prog->idx = -1;
>> +}
> So in perf land we use 'bpf_program__exit()' as the counterpart of
> bpf_program__init(), i.e. one just initializes fields, allocating
> memory for 'struct bpf_program' members, but does not allocates the
> struct bpf_program itself, because sometimes we embed it inside other
> structs, or we have it in arrays, as you do.
>
> So, to keep that convention, please rename bpf_program__clear() to
> bpf_program__exit() and the next function, __bpf_program__new() to
> bpf_program__init(), with 'struct bpf_program *prog' as the first
> parameter.
>
> To speed things up, from now on, when I see such stuff, I will do the
> changes, put them in a branch with a commiter note, and wait for your
> Ack (or not, if you disagree with something).
>
> One more comment below.
>
>> +
>> +static int
>> +__bpf_program__new(void *data, size_t size, char *name, int idx,
>> + struct bpf_program *prog)
>> +{
>> + if (size < sizeof(struct bpf_insn)) {
>> + pr_warning("corrupted section '%s'\n", name);
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + bzero(prog, sizeof(*prog));
>> +
>> + prog->section_name = strdup(name);
>> + if (!prog->section_name) {
>> + pr_warning("failed to alloc name for prog %s\n",
>> + name);
>> + goto errout;
>> + }
>> +
>> + prog->insns = malloc(size);
>> + if (!prog->insns) {
>> + pr_warning("failed to alloc insns for %s\n", name);
>> + goto errout;
>> + }
>> + prog->insns_cnt = size / sizeof(struct bpf_insn);
>> + memcpy(prog->insns, data,
>> + prog->insns_cnt * sizeof(struct bpf_insn));
>> + prog->idx = idx;
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +errout:
>> + bpf_program__clear(prog);
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static struct bpf_program *
>> +bpf_program__new(struct bpf_object *obj, void *data, size_t size,
>> + char *name, int idx)
> This, as well, is not a 'bpf_program' method, it is a 'struct
> bpf_object' one, that will manipulate 'struct bpf_object' internal
> state, changing its struct members to get space for an extra bpf_program
> that was initialized on the stack, if the initialization of such
> bpf_program went well, or bail out otherwise.
>
> So I suggest you rename this to:
>
> int bpf_object__add_program(struct bpf_object *obj, void *data, size_t size, char *name, int idx)
>
> And probably move that debug that uses prog->section_name to just after
> the realloc, here in this function.
>
> I will look at the other patches after lunch, thanks for providing the
> git tree, I will try and use it before looking at the patches
> individually, to get a feel of the whole thing.
I didn't find your code, so I updated my git tree. Please see:
https://github.com/WangNan0/linux/commit/e5ffa4f070ee36cce5130d08622dc305ad9cdb31
And I also resolved a confliction in the next patch.
I think you can comment on current patchset since the modification is
too small to
send again.
And following is new pull request:
The following changes since commit 3381a29cbec5447086c0f726ee9a88c02e60becc:
bpf tools: Collect map definitions from 'maps' section (2015-07-07
13:41:45 -0300)
are available in the git repository at:
https://github.com/WangNan0/linux.git perf/ebpf-for-acme
for you to fetch changes up to ecc453e27f60ff59e0c2d1cdf64fb595b72d2f68:
perf tools: Support attach BPF program on uprobe events (2015-07-10
02:52:57 +0000)
Thank you.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists