netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 02/12] libbpf: implement BPF CO-RE offset relocation algorithm

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: <CAEf4Bzb6swYtf7J_m1bZo6o+aT1AcCXZX5ZBw7Uja=Tne2LCuw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 31 Jul 2019 10:18:59 -0700
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To:     Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
Cc:     Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
        "daniel@...earbox.net" <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>, Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 02/12] libbpf: implement BPF CO-RE offset
 relocation algorithm

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 1:30 AM Song Liu <songliubraving@...com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 30, 2019, at 11:52 PM, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:19 PM Song Liu <songliubraving@...com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Jul 30, 2019, at 6:00 PM, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 5:39 PM Song Liu <songliubraving@...com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Jul 30, 2019, at 12:53 PM, Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This patch implements the core logic for BPF CO-RE offsets relocations.
> >>>>> Every instruction that needs to be relocated has corresponding
> >>>>> bpf_offset_reloc as part of BTF.ext. Relocations are performed by trying
> >>>>> to match recorded "local" relocation spec against potentially many
> >>>>> compatible "target" types, creating corresponding spec. Details of the
> >>>>> algorithm are noted in corresponding comments in the code.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>
>
> [...]
>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I just picked the most succinct and non-repetitive form. It's
> >>> immediately apparent which type it's implicitly converted to, so I
> >>> felt there is no need to repeat it. Also, just (void *) is much
> >>> shorter. :)
> >>
> >> _All_ other code in btf.c converts the pointer to the target type.
> >
> > Most in libbpf.c doesn't, though. Also, I try to preserve pointer
> > constness for uses that don't modify BTF types (pretty much all of
> > them in libbpf), so it becomes really verbose, despite extremely short
> > variable names:
> >
> > const struct btf_member *m = (const struct btf_member *)(t + 1);
>
> I don't think being verbose is a big problem here. Overusing

Problem is too big and strong word to describe this :). It hurts
readability and will often quite artificially force either wrapping
the line or unnecessarily splitting declaration and assignment. Void *
on the other hand is short and usually is in the same line as target
type declaration, if not, you'll have to find local variable
declaration to double-check type, if you are unsure.

Using (void *) + implicit cast to target pointer type is not
unprecedented in libbpf:

$ rg ' = \((const )?struct \w+ \*\)' tools/lib/bpf/ | wc -l
52
$ rg ' = \((const )?void \*\)' tools/lib/bpf/  | wc -l
35

52 vs 35 is majority overall, but not by a landslide.

> (void *) feels like a bigger problem.

Why do you feel it's a problem? void * conveys that we have a piece of
memory that we will need to reinterpret as some concrete pointer type.
That's what we are doing, skipping btf_type and then interpreting
memory after common btf_type prefix is some other type, depending on
actual BTF kind. I don't think void * is misleading in any way.

In any case, if you still feel strongly about this after all my
arguments, please let me know and I will convert them in this patch
set. It's not like I'm opposed to use duplicate type names (though it
does feel sort of Java-like before it got limited type inference),
it's just in practice it leads to unnecessarily verbose code which
doesn't really improve anything.

>
> >
> > Add one or two levels of nestedness and you are wrapping this line.
> >
> >> In some cases, it is not apparent which type it is converted to,
> >> for example:
> >>
> >> +       m = (void *)(targ_type + 1);
> >>
> >> I would suggest we do implicit conversion whenever possible.
> >
> > Implicit conversion (`m = targ_type + 1;`) is a compilation error,
> > that won't work.
>
> I misused "implicit" here. I actually meant to say
>
>         m = ((const struct btf_member *)(t + 1);

Ah, so you meant explicit, yep. It's either `void *` or `const struct
something *` then.

>
>
>