[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0355b933-c47b-d3d3-587a-50b38f192d54@huawei.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2022 09:32:37 +0800
From: Pu Lehui <pulehui@...wei.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
CC: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Björn Töpel <bjorn@...nel.org>,
Luke Nelson <luke.r.nels@...il.com>,
Xi Wang <xi.wang@...il.com>, Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 4/6] libbpf: Unify memory address casting
operation style
On 2022/7/9 6:30, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 5:23 AM Pu Lehui <pulehui@...wei.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2022/6/4 5:03, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 2:03 PM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/30/22 11:28 AM, Pu Lehui wrote:
>>>>> The members of bpf_prog_info, which are line_info, jited_line_info,
>>>>> jited_ksyms and jited_func_lens, store u64 address pointed to the
>>>>> corresponding memory regions. Memory addresses are conceptually
>>>>> unsigned, (unsigned long) casting makes more sense, so let's make
>>>>> a change for conceptual uniformity.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@...wei.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c | 9 +++++----
>>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c
>>>>> index 5c503096ef43..7beb060d0671 100644
>>>>> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c
>>>>> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c
>>>>> @@ -127,7 +127,8 @@ struct bpf_prog_linfo *bpf_prog_linfo__new(const struct bpf_prog_info *info)
>>>>> prog_linfo->raw_linfo = malloc(data_sz);
>>>>> if (!prog_linfo->raw_linfo)
>>>>> goto err_free;
>>>>> - memcpy(prog_linfo->raw_linfo, (void *)(long)info->line_info, data_sz);
>>>>> + memcpy(prog_linfo->raw_linfo, (void *)(unsigned long)info->line_info,
>>>>> + data_sz);
>>>>
>>>> Took in patch 1-3, lgtm, thanks! My question around the cleanups in patch 4-6 ...
>>>> there are various other such cases e.g. in libbpf, perhaps makes sense to clean all
>>>> of them up at once and not just the 4 locations in here.
>>>
>>> if (void *)(long) pattern is wrong, then I guess the best replacement
>>> should be (void *)(uintptr_t) ?
>>>
>>
>> I also think that (void *)(uintptr_t) would be the best replacement. I
>> applied the changes to kernel/bpf and samples/bpf, and it worked fine.
>> But in selftests/bpf, the following similar error occur at compile time:
>>
>> progs/test_cls_redirect.c:504:11: error: cast to 'uint8_t *' (aka
>> 'unsigned char *') from smaller integer type 'uintptr_t' (aka 'unsigned
>> int') [-Werror,-Wint-to-pointer-cast]
>> .head = (uint8_t *)(uintptr_t)skb->data,
>
> this is BPF-side code so using system's uintptr_t definition won't
> work correctly here. Just do (unsigned long) instead?
>
It is fine by me, and for this cleanup
>>
>> I take clang to compile with the front and back end separation, like
>> samples/bpf, and it works. It seems that the all-in-one clang has
>> problems handling the uintptr_t.
>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Daniel
>>> .
>>>
> .
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists