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

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

Message-ID: <2b84fe80-60b6-c9cb-369d-47fb0995aed3@fb.com>
Date:   Sat, 10 Sep 2022 17:06:56 -0700
From:   Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
        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>,
        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 9/9/22 5:26 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> 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?

Yes, clang >= 8 is needed to ensure 'slot' is propagated as 'const' 
instead of variables. clang 6 added support for inline asm but clang 8
is needed for above 'const' propagation into asm code.

> 
>> --
>> 2.34.1
>>