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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CADvTj4oF7Khci-w8LZPWvOjhKEepd-qG0evZ2_OorU=H2wtpaA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Sep 2022 00:44:28 -0600
From:   James Hilliard <james.hilliard1@...il.com>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...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 6:26 PM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> 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?

So, it's a bit different since the ASM syntax issue is more of an
issue with GAS,
we would need a check along these lines I think for a proper migration path:
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220912063514.2824432-1-james.hilliard1@gmail.com/

We would set something like once GAS support for the llvm syntax is added:
.ifdef .gasversion. < 24000

I don't think we can do a compiler version check here like with llvm since GCC
release cycles are out of sync with GAS(llvm assembler is kept in sync with the
compiler AFAIU).

>
> We must have done __clang_major__ check for a reason, old Clangs
> probably had some problems compiling this. Maybe Daniel remembers?
>
> > --
> > 2.34.1
> >