On 2/11/22 8:47 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 7:21 AM Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx> wrote:
struct bpf_spin_lock {
__u32 val;
};
struct bpf_timer {
__u64 :64;
__u64 :64;
} __attribute__((aligned(8)));
The initialization code:
*(struct bpf_spin_lock *)(dst + map->spin_lock_off) =
(struct bpf_spin_lock){};
*(struct bpf_timer *)(dst + map->timer_off) =
(struct bpf_timer){};
It appears the compiler has no obligation to initialize anonymous fields.
For example, let us use clang with bpf target as below:
$ cat t.c
struct bpf_timer {
unsigned long long :64;
};
struct bpf_timer2 {
unsigned long long a;
};
void test(struct bpf_timer *t) {
*t = (struct bpf_timer){};
}
void test2(struct bpf_timer2 *t) {
*t = (struct bpf_timer2){};
}
$ clang -target bpf -O2 -c -g t.c
$ llvm-objdump -d t.o
...
0000000000000000 <test>:
0: 95 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 exit
0000000000000008 <test2>:
1: b7 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0
2: 7b 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 *(u64 *)(r1 + 0) = r2
3: 95 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 exit
wow!
Is this a clang only behavior or gcc does the same "smart" optimization?
We've seen this issue with padding, but I could have never guessed
that compiler will do so for explicit anon fields.
I wonder what standard says and what other kernel code is broken
by this "optimization".
Searched the internet, not sure whether this helps or not.
INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ©ISO/IEC ISO/IEC 9899:201x
Programming languages — C
http://www.open-std.org/Jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1547.pdf
page 157:
Except where explicitly stated otherwise, for the purposes of this
subclause unnamed
members of objects of structure and union type do not participate in
initialization.
Unnamed members of structure objects have indeterminate value even after
initialization.
