Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 05/14] bpf: Remove btf_id helpers resolving

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

 





On 6/28/20 1:16 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 02:36:37PM -0700, Yonghong Song wrote:

SNIP

-	}
-
-	t = btf_type_by_id(btf_vmlinux, t->type);
-	if (!btf_type_is_ptr(t))
-		return -EFAULT;
-	t = btf_type_by_id(btf_vmlinux, t->type);
-	if (!btf_type_is_func_proto(t))
-		return -EFAULT;
-
-	args = (const struct btf_param *)(t + 1);
-	if (arg >= btf_type_vlen(t)) {
-		bpf_log(log, "bpf helper %s doesn't have %d-th argument\n",
-			fnname, arg);
+	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!fn->btf_id))

The original code does not have this warning. It directly did
"ret = READ_ONCE(*btf_id);" after testing reg arg type ARG_PTR_TO_BTF_ID.

not sure why I put it in there, it's probably enough guarded
by arg_type having ARG_PTR_TO_BTF_ID, will remove


   		return -EINVAL;
-	}
-	t = btf_type_by_id(btf_vmlinux, args[arg].type);
-	if (!btf_type_is_ptr(t) || !t->type) {
-		/* anything but the pointer to struct is a helper config bug */
-		bpf_log(log, "ARG_PTR_TO_BTF is misconfigured\n");
-		return -EFAULT;
-	}
-	btf_id = t->type;
-	t = btf_type_by_id(btf_vmlinux, t->type);
-	/* skip modifiers */
-	while (btf_type_is_modifier(t)) {
-		btf_id = t->type;
-		t = btf_type_by_id(btf_vmlinux, t->type);
-	}
-	if (!btf_type_is_struct(t)) {
-		bpf_log(log, "ARG_PTR_TO_BTF is not a struct\n");
-		return -EFAULT;
-	}
-	bpf_log(log, "helper %s arg%d has btf_id %d struct %s\n", fnname + 4,
-		arg, btf_id, __btf_name_by_offset(btf_vmlinux, t->name_off));
-	return btf_id;
-}
+	id = fn->btf_id[arg];

The corresponding BTF_ID definition here is:
   BTF_ID_LIST(bpf_skb_output_btf_ids)
   BTF_ID(struct, sk_buff)

The bpf helper writer needs to ensure proper declarations
of BTF_IDs like the above matching helpers definition.
Support we have arg1 and arg3 as BTF_ID. then the list
definition may be

   BTF_ID_LIST(bpf_skb_output_btf_ids)
   BTF_ID(struct, sk_buff)
   BTF_ID(struct, __unused)
   BTF_ID(struct, task_struct)

This probably okay, I guess.

right, AFAIK we don't have such case yet, but would be good
to be ready and have something like

   BTF_ID(struct, __unused)

maybe adding new type for that will be better:

   BTF_ID(none, unused)

Maybe we can have a separate macro BTF_ID_UNUSED macro
which simply adds 4 bytes hole in the .btf_ids* section.


jirka




[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