linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] libbpf: define bpf_tail_call_static when __clang_

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <CAEf4Bzbm_wq=n8+ve95aBtJkK-WcsUmKM_LT57XU0D9zS9gXuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 9 Sep 2022 17:26:36 -0700
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To:     James Hilliard <james.hilliard1@...il.com>
Cc:     bpf@...r.kernel.org, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
        Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
        Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libbpf: define bpf_tail_call_static when __clang__ is not defined

On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 3:46 PM James Hilliard <james.hilliard1@...il.com> wrote:
>
> The bpf_tail_call_static function is currently not defined unless
> using clang >= 8.
>
> To support bpf_tail_call_static on GCC we can check if __clang__ is
> not defined to enable bpf_tail_call_static.
>
> Signed-off-by: James Hilliard <james.hilliard1@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
> ---
>  tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h | 10 +++++-----
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
> index 7349b16b8e2f..30fc95e7cd76 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
> @@ -131,7 +131,7 @@
>  /*
>   * Helper function to perform a tail call with a constant/immediate map slot.
>   */
> -#if __clang_major__ >= 8 && defined(__bpf__)
> +#if (!defined(__clang__) || __clang_major__ >= 8) && defined(__bpf__)
>  static __always_inline void
>  bpf_tail_call_static(void *ctx, const void *map, const __u32 slot)
>  {
> @@ -139,8 +139,8 @@ bpf_tail_call_static(void *ctx, const void *map, const __u32 slot)
>                 __bpf_unreachable();
>
>         /*
> -        * Provide a hard guarantee that LLVM won't optimize setting r2 (map
> -        * pointer) and r3 (constant map index) from _different paths_ ending
> +        * Provide a hard guarantee that the compiler won't optimize setting r2
> +        * (map pointer) and r3 (constant map index) from _different paths_ ending
>          * up at the _same_ call insn as otherwise we won't be able to use the
>          * jmpq/nopl retpoline-free patching by the x86-64 JIT in the kernel
>          * given they mismatch. See also d2e4c1e6c294 ("bpf: Constant map key
> @@ -148,8 +148,8 @@ bpf_tail_call_static(void *ctx, const void *map, const __u32 slot)
>          *
>          * Note on clobber list: we need to stay in-line with BPF calling
>          * convention, so even if we don't end up using r0, r4, r5, we need
> -        * to mark them as clobber so that LLVM doesn't end up using them
> -        * before / after the call.
> +        * to mark them as clobber so that the compiler doesn't end up using
> +        * them before / after the call.
>          */
>         asm volatile("r1 = %[ctx]\n\t"
>                      "r2 = %[map]\n\t"

will this compile as is on GCC-BPF? I'm trying to understand what's
the point. Once GCC supports this ASM syntax we can add similar check
to __clang_major__, instead of allowing it for all GCC versions?

We must have done __clang_major__ check for a reason, old Clangs
probably had some problems compiling this. Maybe Daniel remembers?

> --
> 2.34.1
>