[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4ab9aafe-6436-b90d-5448-f74da22ddddb@csgroup.eu>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2023 14:25:43 +0000
From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
To: Tonghao Zhang <tong@...ragraf.org>
CC: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
"bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.or"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.or>,
"loongarch@...ts.linux.dev" <loongarch@...ts.linux.dev>,
"linux-mips@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>,
"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-s390@...r.kernel.org" <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
"sparclinux@...r.kernel.org" <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>,
Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Hou Tao <houtao1@...wei.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
"naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com>,
"mpe@...erman.id.au" <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Subject: Re: [bpf-next v2] bpf: drop deprecated bpf_jit_enable == 2
Le 17/01/2023 à 15:18, Tonghao Zhang a écrit :
>
>
>> On Jan 17, 2023, at 7:36 PM, Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Le 17/01/2023 à 08:30, Christophe Leroy a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 17/01/2023 à 06:30, Tonghao Zhang a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 9, 2023, at 4:15 PM, Christophe Leroy
>>>>> <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Le 06/01/2023 à 16:37, Daniel Borkmann a écrit :
>>>>>> On 1/5/23 6:53 PM, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>>>>>> Le 05/01/2023 à 04:06, tong@...ragraf.org a écrit :
>>>>>>>> From: Tonghao Zhang <tong@...ragraf.org>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The x86_64 can't dump the valid insn in this way. A test BPF prog
>>>>>>>> which include subprog:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> $ llvm-objdump -d subprog.o
>>>>>>>> Disassembly of section .text:
>>>>>>>> 0000000000000000 <subprog>:
>>>>>>>> 0: 18 01 00 00 73 75 62 70 00 00 00 00 72 6f 67 00 r1
>>>>>>>> = 29114459903653235 ll
>>>>>>>> 2: 7b 1a f8 ff 00 00 00 00 *(u64 *)(r10 - 8) = r1
>>>>>>>> 3: bf a1 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = r10
>>>>>>>> 4: 07 01 00 00 f8 ff ff ff r1 += -8
>>>>>>>> 5: b7 02 00 00 08 00 00 00 r2 = 8
>>>>>>>> 6: 85 00 00 00 06 00 00 00 call 6
>>>>>>>> 7: 95 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 exit
>>>>>>>> Disassembly of section raw_tp/sys_enter:
>>>>>>>> 0000000000000000 <entry>:
>>>>>>>> 0: 85 10 00 00 ff ff ff ff call -1
>>>>>>>> 1: b7 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r0 = 0
>>>>>>>> 2: 95 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 exit
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> kernel print message:
>>>>>>>> [ 580.775387] flen=8 proglen=51 pass=3 image=ffffffffa000c20c
>>>>>>>> from=kprobe-load pid=1643
>>>>>>>> [ 580.777236] JIT code: 00000000: cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc
>>>>>>>> cc cc cc cc cc
>>>>>>>> [ 580.779037] JIT code: 00000010: cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc
>>>>>>>> cc cc cc cc cc
>>>>>>>> [ 580.780767] JIT code: 00000020: cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc
>>>>>>>> cc cc cc cc cc
>>>>>>>> [ 580.782568] JIT code: 00000030: cc cc cc
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> $ bpf_jit_disasm
>>>>>>>> 51 bytes emitted from JIT compiler (pass:3, flen:8)
>>>>>>>> ffffffffa000c20c + <x>:
>>>>>>>> 0: int3
>>>>>>>> 1: int3
>>>>>>>> 2: int3
>>>>>>>> 3: int3
>>>>>>>> 4: int3
>>>>>>>> 5: int3
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Until bpf_jit_binary_pack_finalize is invoked, we copy rw_header to
>>>>>>>> header
>>>>>>>> and then image/insn is valid. BTW, we can use the "bpftool prog dump"
>>>>>>>> JITed instructions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> NACK.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because the feature is buggy on x86_64, you remove it for all
>>>>>>> architectures ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On powerpc bpf_jit_enable == 2 works and is very usefull.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Last time I tried to use bpftool on powerpc/32 it didn't work. I don't
>>>>>>> remember the details, I think it was an issue with endianess. Maybe it
>>>>>>> is fixed now, but it needs to be verified.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So please, before removing a working and usefull feature, make sure
>>>>>>> there is an alternative available to it for all architectures in all
>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, I don't think bpftool is usable to dump kernel BPF selftests.
>>>>>>> That's vital when a selftest fails if you want to have a chance to
>>>>>>> understand why it fails.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If this is actively used by JIT developers and considered useful,
>>>>>> I'd be
>>>>>> ok to leave it for the time being. Overall goal is to reach feature
>>>>>> parity
>>>>>> among (at least major arch) JITs and not just have most
>>>>>> functionality only
>>>>>> available on x86-64 JIT. Could you however check what is not working
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> bpftool on powerpc/32? Perhaps it's not too much effort to just fix it,
>>>>>> but details would be useful otherwise 'it didn't work' is too fuzzy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure I will try to test bpftool again in the coming days.
>>>>>
>>>>> Previous discussion about that subject is here:
>>>>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-riscv/patch/20210415093250.3391257-1-Jianlin.Lv@arm.com/#24176847=
>>>> Hi Christophe
>>>> Any progress? We discuss to deprecate the bpf_jit_enable == 2 in 2021,
>>>> but bpftool can not run on powerpc.
>>>> Now can we fix this issue?
>>>
>>> Hi Tong,
>>>
>>> I have started to look at it but I don't have any fruitfull feedback yet.
>>
>> Hi Again,
>>
>> I tested again, the problem is still the same as one year ago:
>>
>> root@...ip:~# ./bpftool prog
>> libbpf: elf: endianness mismatch in pid_iter_bpf.
> It seem to be not right ehdr->e_ident[EI_DATA]. Do we can print the real value?
> /*
> * e_ident[EI_DATA]
> */
> #define ELFDATANONE 0
> #define ELFDATA2LSB 1
> #define ELFDATA2MSB 2
> #define ELFDATANUM 3
>
> bpf_object__elf_init:
> obj->efile.ehdr = ehdr = elf64_getehdr(elf);
>
>> libbpf: failed to initialize skeleton BPF object 'pid_iter_bpf': -4003
>> Error: failed to open PID iterator skeleton
>>
>> root@...ip:~# uname -a
>> Linux vgoip 6.2.0-rc3-02596-g1c2c9c13e256 #242 PREEMPT Tue Jan 17
>> 09:36:08 CET 2023 ppc GNU/Linux
> On my pc, elf is little endian.
> # readelf -h tools/bpf/bpftool/pid_iter.bpf.o
> ELF Header:
> Magic: 7f 45 4c 46 02 01 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> Class: ELF64
> Data: 2's complement, little endian # x86_64
> Version: 1 (current)
> OS/ABI: UNIX - System V
> ABI Version: 0
> Type: REL (Relocatable file)
> Machine: Linux BPF
> Version: 0x1
> Entry point address: 0x0
> Start of program headers: 0 (bytes into file)
> Start of section headers: 64832 (bytes into file)
> Flags: 0x0
> Size of this header: 64 (bytes)
> Size of program headers: 0 (bytes)
> Number of program headers: 0
> Size of section headers: 64 (bytes)
> Number of section headers: 13
> Section header string table index: 1
>
Yes, must be something wrong with the build, I get same as you :
$ LANG= readelf -h pid_iter.bpf.o
ELF Header:
Magic: 7f 45 4c 46 02 01 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
Class: ELF64
Data: 2's complement, little endian
Version: 1 (current)
OS/ABI: UNIX - System V
ABI Version: 0
Type: REL (Relocatable file)
Machine: Linux BPF
Version: 0x1
Entry point address: 0x0
Start of program headers: 0 (bytes into file)
Start of section headers: 34704 (bytes into file)
Flags: 0x0
Size of this header: 64 (bytes)
Size of program headers: 0 (bytes)
Number of program headers: 0
Size of section headers: 64 (bytes)
Number of section headers: 13
Section header string table index: 1
Whereas I expect the same as bpftool I suppose, which is :
$ LANG= readelf -h bpftool
ELF Header:
Magic: 7f 45 4c 46 01 02 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
Class: ELF32
Data: 2's complement, big endian
Version: 1 (current)
OS/ABI: UNIX - System V
ABI Version: 0
Type: EXEC (Executable file)
Machine: PowerPC
Version: 0x1
Entry point address: 0x100027d0
Start of program headers: 52 (bytes into file)
Start of section headers: 1842896 (bytes into file)
Flags: 0x0
Size of this header: 52 (bytes)
Size of program headers: 32 (bytes)
Number of program headers: 9
Size of section headers: 40 (bytes)
Number of section headers: 39
Section header string table index: 38
Thanks
Christophe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists