On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 5:36 PM Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2024-02-27 at 17:18 +0100, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> [...]
>
> > Hmm, I must still be missing a piece of the puzzle:
> > if I declare bpf_timer_set_sleepable_cb() to take a third "aux"
> > argument, given that it is declared as kfunc, I also must declare it in
> > my bpf program, or I get the following:
> >
> > # libbpf: extern (func ksym) 'bpf_timer_set_sleepable_cb': func_proto [264] incompatible with vmlinux [18151]
> >
> > And if I declare it, then I don't know what to pass, given that this is
> > purely added by the verifier:
> >
> > 43: (85) call bpf_timer_set_sleepable_cb#18152
> > arg#2 pointer type STRUCT bpf_prog_aux must point to scalar, or struct with scalar
>
> Right, something has to be done about number of arguments and we don't
> have a convenient mechanism for this afaik.
>
> The simplest way would be to have two kfuncs:
> - one with 2 arguments, used form bpf program;
> - another with 3 arguments, used at runtime;
> - replace former by latter during rewrite.
It's hacky but seems interesting enough to be tested :)
>
> > Maybe I should teach the verifier that this kfunc only takes 2
> > arguments, and the third one is virtual, but that also means that when
> > the kfunc definitions are to be included in vmlinux.h, they would also
> > have this special case.
>
> It might be a somewhat generic mechanism, e.g. btf_decl_tag("hidden")
> for kfunc parameter.
We also could use the suffix (like __uninit, __k, etc...), but it
might introduce more headaches than the 2 kfuncs you are proposing.
>
> imho, having two kfuncs is less hacky.
>
> > (I just tried with a blank u64 instead of the struct bpf_prog_aux*, but
> > it crashes with KASAN complaining).
>
> For my understanding:
> - you added a 3rd param (void *) to kfunc;
it was struct bpf_prog_aux *, but yes
> - passed it as zero in BPF program;
> - applied the above rewrite, so that r3 equals to prog->aux;
> - and now KASAN complains, right?
yep, but see below
>
> Could you please provide more details on what exactly it complains about?
>
Well, there is a simple reason: that code is never reached because, in
that function, there is a `if (insn->src_reg ==
BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL)` above that unconditionally terminates with a
`continue`. So basically this part of the code is never hit.
I'll include that new third argument and the dual kfunc call in
fixup_kfunc_call() and report if it works from here.
Cheers,
Benjamin
