Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] objtool: Fix ORC unwinding in non-JIT BPF generated code

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 12:56:41PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> Objtool currently ignores ___bpf_prog_run() because it doesn't
> understand the jump table.  This results in the ORC unwinder not being
> able to unwind through non-JIT BPF code.
> 
> Luckily, the BPF jump table resembles a GCC switch jump table, which
> objtool already knows how to read.
> 
> Add generic support for reading any static local jump table array named
> "jump_table", and rename the BPF variable accordingly, so objtool can
> generate ORC data for ___bpf_prog_run().
> 
> Fixes: d15d356887e7 ("perf/x86: Make perf callchains work without CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER")
> Reported-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@xxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  kernel/bpf/core.c     |  5 ++---
>  tools/objtool/check.c | 16 ++++++++++++++--
>  2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c
> index 7c473f208a10..aa546ef7dbdc 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c
> @@ -1299,7 +1299,7 @@ static u64 ___bpf_prog_run(u64 *regs, const struct bpf_insn *insn, u64 *stack)
>  {
>  #define BPF_INSN_2_LBL(x, y)    [BPF_##x | BPF_##y] = &&x##_##y
>  #define BPF_INSN_3_LBL(x, y, z) [BPF_##x | BPF_##y | BPF_##z] = &&x##_##y##_##z
> -	static const void *jumptable[256] = {
> +	static const void *jump_table[256] = {
>  		[0 ... 255] = &&default_label,
>  		/* Now overwrite non-defaults ... */
>  		BPF_INSN_MAP(BPF_INSN_2_LBL, BPF_INSN_3_LBL),
> @@ -1315,7 +1315,7 @@ static u64 ___bpf_prog_run(u64 *regs, const struct bpf_insn *insn, u64 *stack)
>  #define CONT_JMP ({ insn++; goto select_insn; })
>  
>  select_insn:
> -	goto *jumptable[insn->code];
> +	goto *jump_table[insn->code];
>  
>  	/* ALU */
>  #define ALU(OPCODE, OP)			\
> @@ -1558,7 +1558,6 @@ static u64 ___bpf_prog_run(u64 *regs, const struct bpf_insn *insn, u64 *stack)
>  		BUG_ON(1);
>  		return 0;
>  }
> -STACK_FRAME_NON_STANDARD(___bpf_prog_run); /* jump table */
>  
>  #define PROG_NAME(stack_size) __bpf_prog_run##stack_size
>  #define DEFINE_BPF_PROG_RUN(stack_size) \
> diff --git a/tools/objtool/check.c b/tools/objtool/check.c
> index 172f99195726..8341c2fff14f 100644
> --- a/tools/objtool/check.c
> +++ b/tools/objtool/check.c
> @@ -18,6 +18,8 @@
>  
>  #define FAKE_JUMP_OFFSET -1
>  
> +#define JUMP_TABLE_SYM_PREFIX "jump_table."

since external tool will be looking at it should it be named 
"bpf_jump_table." to avoid potential name conflicts?
Or even more unique name?
Like "bpf_interpreter_jump_table." ?




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux