[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <73xnkgitatvymw2bqwo6elqmdpsvj2atmh6ugrityvqyegguq7@cjos2bsw2ico>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2023 17:22:02 -0600
From: Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc: ast@...nel.org, andrii@...nel.org, shuah@...nel.org,
daniel@...earbox.net, steffen.klassert@...unet.com,
antony.antony@...unet.com, mykolal@...com, martin.lau@...ux.dev,
song@...nel.org, yonghong.song@...ux.dev, john.fastabend@...il.com,
kpsingh@...nel.org, sdf@...gle.com, haoluo@...gle.com,
jolsa@...nel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
devel@...ux-ipsec.org
Subject: Re: [RFC bpf-next 5/6] bpf: selftests: test_tunnel: Disable CO-RE
relocations
On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 01:33:09PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 11:46 AM Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz> wrote:
> >
> > Switching to vmlinux.h definitions seems to make the verifier very
> > unhappy with bitfield accesses. The error is:
> >
> > ; md.u.md2.dir = direction;
> > 33: (69) r1 = *(u16 *)(r2 +11)
> > misaligned stack access off (0x0; 0x0)+-64+11 size 2
> >
> > It looks like disabling CO-RE relocations seem to make the error go
> > away.
> >
>
> for accessing bitfields libbpf provides
> BPF_CORE_READ_BITFIELD_PROBED() and BPF_CORE_READ_BITFIELD() macros
In this case the code in question is:
__u8 direction = 0;
md.u.md2.dir = direction;
IOW the problem is assigning to bitfields, not reading from them.
Is that something that libbpf needs to support as well?
Thanks,
Daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists