linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 09/16] perf tools: Enable indices setting syntax for BPF maps

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <566E480C.7030702@huawei.com>
Date:	Mon, 14 Dec 2015 12:39:40 +0800
From:	"Wangnan (F)" <wangnan0@...wei.com>
To:	Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
CC:	pi3orama <pi3orama@....com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
	<namhyung@...nel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<mingo@...nel.org>, <lizefan@...wei.com>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 09/16] perf tools: Enable indices setting syntax for
 BPF maps



On 2015/12/14 12:28, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 11:27:36AM +0800, Wangnan (F) wrote:
>>
>> On 2015/12/12 2:21, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 08:39:35PM +0800, pi3orama wrote:
>>>>> static u64 (*bpf_ktime_get_ns)(void) =
>>>>>      (void *)5;
>>>>> static int (*bpf_trace_printk)(const char *fmt, int fmt_size, ...) =
>>>>>      (void *)6;
>>>>> static int (*bpf_get_smp_processor_id)(void) =
>>>>>      (void *)8;
>>>>> static int (*bpf_perf_event_output)(void *, struct bpf_map_def *, int,
>>>>> void *, unsigned long) =
>>>>>      (void *)23;
>>>>>
>>>>> Where can I get this magical mistery table? Could this be hidden away in
>>>>> some .h file automagically included in bpf scriptlets so that n00bies
>>>>> like me don't have to be wtf'ing?
>>>>>
>>>> They are function numbers defined in bpf.h and bpf-common.h, but they are Linux
>>>> headers. Directly include them causes many error for llvm. Also, the function
>>>> prototypes are BPF specific and can't included in Linux source. We should have
>>>> a place holds those indices and prototypes together.
>>> wait, what kind of errors?
>>> they are in uapi, so gets installed into /usr/include eventually
>>> and I haven't seen any erros either with gcc or clang.
>>>
>> Sorry. I saw error because I use
>>
>> #include <linux/bpf.h>
>>
>> It is okay if I use
>>
>> #include <uapi/linux/bpf.h>
> then let's use that instead of copy-paste. thanks

And what do you think about the BPF function prototype? Should we put them
into kernel headers? What about::

diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf_functions.h 
b/include/uapi/linux/bpf_functions.h
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3a562d4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf_functions.h
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+DEFINE_BPF_FUNC(void *, map_lookup_elem, void *, void *)
+DEFINE_BPF_FUNC(int, map_update_elem, void *, void *, void *, int)
[SNIP]
diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
index 9ea2d22..2f2f05f 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
@@ -133,143 +133,23 @@ union bpf_attr {
         };
  } __attribute__((aligned(8)));

+#define DEFINE_BPF_FUNC(rettype, name, arglist...) BPF_FUNC_##name
+
+enum bpf_func_id {
+BPF_FUNC_unspec,
+#include "bpf_functions.h"
+__BPF_FUNC_MAX_ID,
+};
+
+#ifdef __BPF_SOURCE__
+#undef DEFINE_BPF_FUNC
+#define DEFINE_BPF_FUNC(rettype, name, arglist...)     static rettype 
(*name)(arglist) = (void *)BPF_FUNC_##name
+#include "bpf_functions.h"
+#endif
  /* integer value in 'imm' field of BPF_CALL instruction selects which 
helper
   * function eBPF program intends to call
   */
  enum bpf_func_id {
-       BPF_FUNC_unspec,
[SNIP]

And when compiling BPF source file we add a __BPF_SOURCE__ directive?

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/