netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 0/3] bpf: support module BTF in BTF display helpers

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: <alpine.LRH.2.23.451.2012060038260.1505@localhost>
Date:   Sun, 6 Dec 2020 00:43:36 +0000 (GMT)
From:   Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@...cle.com>
To:     Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
cc:     Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@...cle.com>, ast@...nel.org,
        daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org, kafai@...com,
        songliubraving@...com, john.fastabend@...il.com,
        kpsingh@...omium.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org, quentin@...valent.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org, shuah@...nel.org, lmb@...udflare.com,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 0/3] bpf: support module BTF in BTF display
 helpers


On Sat, 5 Dec 2020, Yonghong Song wrote:

> 
> 
> __builtin_btf_type_id() is really only supported in llvm12
> and 64bit return value support is pushed to llvm12 trunk
> a while back. The builtin is introduced in llvm11 but has a
> corner bug, so llvm12 is recommended. So if people use the builtin,
> you can assume 64bit return value. libbpf support is required
> here. So in my opinion, there is no need to do feature detection.
> 
> Andrii has a patch to support 64bit return value for
> __builtin_btf_type_id() and I assume that one should
> be landed before or together with your patch.
> 
> Just for your info. The following is an example you could
> use to determine whether __builtin_btf_type_id()
> supports btf object id at llvm level.
> 
> -bash-4.4$ cat t.c
> int test(int arg) {
>   return __builtin_btf_type_id(arg, 1);
> }
> 
> Compile to generate assembly code with latest llvm12 trunk:
>   clang -target bpf -O2 -S -g -mcpu=v3 t.c
> In the asm code, you should see one line with
>   r0 = 1 ll
> 
> Or you can generate obj code:
>   clang -target bpf -O2 -c -g -mcpu=v3 t.c
> and then you disassemble the obj file
>   llvm-objdump -d --no-show-raw-insn --no-leading-addr t.o
> You should see below in the output
>   r0 = 1 ll
> 
> Use earlier version of llvm12 trunk, the builtin has
> 32bit return value, you will see
>   r0 = 1
> which is a 32bit imm to r0, while "r0 = 1 ll" is
> 64bit imm to r0.
>

Thanks for this Yonghong!  I'm thinking the way I'll tackle it
is to simply verify that the upper 32 bits specifying the
veth module object id are non-zero; if they are zero, we'll skip
the test (I think a skip probably makes sense as not everyone will
have llvm12). Does that seem reasonable?

With the additional few minor changes on top of Andrii's patch,
the use of __builtin_btf_type_id() worked perfectly. Thanks!

Alan