Message-ID: <87ee467p1f.fsf@toke.dk>
Date:   Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:40:44 +0100
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To:     Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@...e.com>
Cc:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
        Michal Suchánek 
        <msuchanek@...e.de>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: BTF compatibility issue across builds

Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@...e.com> writes:

> On Sat, Feb 12, 2022 at 12:58:51AM +0100, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> writes:
>> 
>> > On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 9:20 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 2:01 AM Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@...e.de> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hello,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 09:36:44AM -0800, Yonghong Song wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On 1/27/22 7:10 AM, Shung-Hsi Yu wrote:
>> >> >> > > Hi,
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > We recently run into module load failure related to split BTF on openSUSE
>> >> >> > > Tumbleweed[1], which I believe is something that may also happen on other
>> >> >> > > rolling distros.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > The error looks like the follow (though failure is not limited to ipheth)
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >      BPF:[103111] STRUCT BPF:size=152 vlen=2 BPF: BPF:Invalid name BPF:
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >      failed to validate module [ipheth] BTF: -22
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > The error comes down to trying to load BTF of *kernel modules from a
>> >> >> > > different build* than the runtime kernel (but the source is the same), where
>> >> >> > > the base BTF of the two build is different.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > While it may be too far stretched to call this a bug, solving this might
>> >> >> > > make BTF adoption easier. I'd natively think that we could further split
>> >> >> > > base BTF into two part to avoid this issue, where .BTF only contain exported
>> >> >> > > types, and the other (still residing in vmlinux) holds the unexported types.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > What is the exported types? The types used by export symbols?
>> >> >> > This for sure will increase btf handling complexity.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And it will not actually help.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> We have modversion ABI which checks the checksum of the symbols that the
>> >> >> module imports and fails the load if the checksum for these symbols does
>> >> >> not match. It's not concerned with symbols not exported, it's not
>> >> >> concerned with symbols not used by the module. This is something that is
>> >> >> sustainable across kernel rebuilds with minor fixes/features and what
>> >> >> distributions watch for.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Now with BTF the situation is vastly different. There are at least three
>> >> >> bugs:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>  - The BTF check is global for all symbols, not for the symbols the
>> >> >>    module uses. This is not sustainable. Given the BTF is supposed to
>> >> >>    allow linking BPF programs that were built in completely different
>> >> >>    environment with the kernel it is completely within the scope of BTF
>> >> >>    to solve this problem, it's just neglected.
>> >> >
>> >> > You refer to BTF use in CO-RE with the latter. It's just one
>> >> > application of BTF and it doesn't follow that you can do the same with
>> >> > module BTF. It's not a neglect, it's a very big technical difficulty.
>> >> >
>> >> > Each module's BTFs are designed as logical extensions of vmlinux BTF.
>> >> > And each module BTF is independent and isolated from other modules
>> >> > extension of the same vmlinux BTF. The way that BTF format is
>> >> > designed, any tiny difference in vmlinux BTF effectively invalidates
>> >> > all modules' BTFs and they have to be rebuilt.
>> >> >
>> >> > Imagine that only one BTF type is added to vmlinux BTF. Last BTF type
>> >> > ID in vmlinux BTF is shifted from, say, 1000 to 1001. While previously
>> >> > every module's BTF type ID started with 1001, now they all have to
>> >> > start with 1002 and be shifted by 1.
>> >> >
>> >> > Now let's say that the order of two BTF types in vmlinux BTF is
>> >> > changed, say type 10 becomes type 20 and type 20 becomes type 10 (just
>> >> > because of slight difference in DWARF, for instance). Any type
>> >> > reference to 10 or 20 in any module BTF has to be renumbered now.
>> >> >
>> >> > Another one, let's say we add a new string to vmlinux BTF string
>> >> > section somewhere at the beginning, say "abc" at offset 100. Any
>> >> > string offset after 100 now has to be shifted *both* in vmlinux BTF
>> >> > and all module BTFs. And also any string reference in module BTFs have
>> >> > to be adjusted as well because now each module's BTF's logical string
>> >> > offset is starting at 4 logical bytes higher (due to "abc\0" being
>> >> > added and shifting everything right).
>> >> >
>> >> > As you can see, any tiny change in vmlinux BTF, no matter where,
>> >> > beginning, middle, or end, causes massive changes in type IDs and
>> >> > offsets everywhere. It's impractical to do any local adjustments, it's
>> >> > much simpler and more reliable to completely regenerate BTF
>> >> > completely.
>> >>
>> >> This seems incredibly brittle, though? IIUC this means that if you want
>> >> BTF in your modules you *must* have not only the kernel headers of the
>> >> kernel it's going to run on, but the full BTF information for the exact
>> >
>> > From BTF perspective, only vmlinux BTF. Having exact kernel headers
>> > would minimize type information duplication.
>> 
>> Right, I meant you'd need the kernel headers to compile the module, and
>> the vmlinux BTF to build the module BTF info.
>> 
>> >> kernel image you're going to load that module on? How is that supposed
>> >> to work for any kind of environment where everything is not built
>> >> together? Third-party modules for distribution kernels is the obvious
>> >> example that comes to mind here, but as this thread shows, they don't
>> >> necessarily even have to be third party...
>> >>
>> >> How would you go about "completely regenerating BTF" in practice for a
>> >> third-party module, say?
>> >
>> > Great questions. I was kind of hoping you'll have some suggestions as
>> > well, though. Not just complaints.
>> 
>> Well, I kinda took your "not really a bug either" comment to mean you
>> weren't really open to changing the current behaviour. But if that was a
>> misunderstanding on my part, I do have one thought:
>> 
>> The "partial BTF" thing in the modules is done to save space, right?
>> I.e., in principle there would be nothing preventing a module from
>> including a full (self-contained) set of BTF in its .ko when it is
>> compiled? Because if so, we could allow that as an optional mode that
>> can be enabled if you don't mind taking the size hit (any idea how large
>> that usually is, BTW?).
>
> This seems quite nice IMO as no change need to be made on the generation
> side of existing BTF tooling. I test it out on openSUSE Tumbleweed 5.16.5
> kernel modules, and for the sake of completeness, includes both the case
> where BTF is stripped and using a pre-trained zstd dictionary as well.
>
> Uncompressed, no BTF                             362MiB -27%
> Uncompressed, parital BTF                        499MiB +0%
> Uncompressed, self-contained BTF                1026MiB +105%
>
> Zstd compressed, no BTF                           95MiB -35%
> Zstd compressed, partial BTF                     147MiB +0%
> Zstd compressed, self-contained BTF              361MiB +145%
> Zstd compressed (trained), self-contained BTF    299MiB +103%
>
> So we'd expect quite a bit of hit as the size of kernel module would double.
>
> For servers and workstation environment an additional ~200MiB of disk space
> seems like tolerable trade-off if it can get third-party kernel module to
> work. But I cannot speak for other kind of use cases.

Well, there are also in-between tradeoffs (i.e., you can build a subset
of the modules with self-contained BTF and a subset with partial BTF
depending on what fits your build environment).

We could also come up with more optimisations later if needed; one thing
that comes to mind is adding the option to build a set of modules
together and have them deduplicate BTF between them, but still be
self-contained as a group. E.g., all netfilter modules could share a
common BTF set if you can be sure they will always be rebuilt together.
Once we have the deduplication logic in 'modprobe' this could be made
infinitely complex (recursive groups of deduplicated chunks of BTF!),
but that's probably overdoing it ;)

>> And then we could teach 'modprobe' to do a fresh deduplication of this
>> full BTF set against the vmlinux BTF before loading such a module into the
>> kernel.
>> 
>> Or am I missing some reason why that wouldn't work?
>
> One minor problem would be this is essentially introducing a new kernel
> module BTF format that uses exactly the same header.
>
> Ever since the introduction of split BTF, we're reusing btf_header but
> acting as if there's an extra hidden flag indicating whether the BTF is
> self-contained or partial. So far we could implicitly guess the value of the
> flag since BTF in vmlinux is always self-contained and BTF in kernel module
> is always partial; but if self-contained BTF on kernel module is introduced
> this will no longer be the case.
>
> Not sure if it'd be a issue in practice though, as we could go through the
> type info and see whether there's any type ID that is too large and cannot
> be found.

Yeah, one option could be to just discover it when parsing the BTF: if
it's not self-contained, assume it's referring to the vmlinux BTF and
act accordingly. As long as there is no risk of "false positives" where
the loader detects the wrong thing, but I don't think this detection
would add any failure cases that are not present already today?

Another option would be to but self-contained BTF in a different
section. Or we could amend the header as you say, but with what?

-Toke

Powered by blists - more mailing lists