Re: Problem with BPF_CORE_READ macro function

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

 



On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 6:23 AM David Marcinkovic
<david.marcinkovic@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 9:35 PM Andrii Nakryiko
> <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 4:20 AM David Marcinkovic
> > <david.marcinkovic@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello everyone,
> > >
> > > I am trying to run a simple BPF program that hooks onto
> > > `mac80211/drv_sta_state` tracepoint. When I run the program on the arm
> > > 32 bit architecture,
> > > the verifier rejects to load the program and outputs the following error
> > > message:
> > >
> > > Unrecognized arg#0 type PTR
> > > ; int tp__mac80211_drv_sta_state(struct trace_event_raw_drv_sta_state* ctx)
> > > 0: (bf) r3 = r1
> > > 1: (85) call unknown#195896080
> > > invalid func unknown#195896080
> > >
> > > This error does not seem to occur on the amd64 architecture. I am
> > > using clang version 10 for both, compiling on amd64 and
> > > cross-compiling for arm32.
> > >
> > >
> > > I have prepared a simple program that hooks onto the
> > > `mac80211/drv_sta_state` tracepoint.
> > > In this example, `BPF_CORE_READ` macro function seems to cause the
> > > verifier to reject to load the program.
> > > I've been using this macro in various different programs and it didn't
> > > cause any problems.
> > > Also, I've been using packed structs and bit fields in other programs
> > > and they also didn't cause any problems.
> > >
> > > I tried to use BPF_CORE_READ_BITFIELD as stated in this patch [0] and
> > > got a similar error.
> > >
> > > Any input is much appreciated,
> > >
> >
> > Can you provide libbpf debug output, especially the section about
> > CO-RE relocations? Could it be that this tracepoint is inside the
> > kernel module?
>
> You're right. The problem is that this tracepoint is inside the kernel module.
> I recompiled the kernel with CONFIG_MAC80211 flag set to 'y' and the
> program loads
> successfully.
>

Ok, just as I suspected. With [0] and [1] (and using pahole 1.19+ to
build the kernel and modules), it should work even for modules now.

[0] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=395715&state=*
[1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=380759&state=*

> Thank you very much for your fast reply.
>
> >
> > > Best regards,
> > > David Marčinković
> > >
> > >
> > > [0] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20201007202946.3684483-1-andrii@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#ma08db511daa0b5978f16df9f98f4ef644b83fc96
> > >
> > >
> >
> > [...]




[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