On Sun, Feb 13, 2022 at 04:40:44PM +0100, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Sat, Feb 12, 2022 at 12:58:51AM +0100, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > >> Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> > >> > On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 9:20 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> >> > >> >> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 2:01 AM Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Hello, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 09:36:44AM -0800, Yonghong Song wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > On 1/27/22 7:10 AM, Shung-Hsi Yu wrote: > >> >> >> > > Hi, > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > We recently run into module load failure related to split BTF on openSUSE > >> >> >> > > Tumbleweed[1], which I believe is something that may also happen on other > >> >> >> > > rolling distros. > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > The error looks like the follow (though failure is not limited to ipheth) > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > BPF:[103111] STRUCT BPF:size=152 vlen=2 BPF: BPF:Invalid name BPF: > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > failed to validate module [ipheth] BTF: -22 > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > The error comes down to trying to load BTF of *kernel modules from a > >> >> >> > > different build* than the runtime kernel (but the source is the same), where > >> >> >> > > the base BTF of the two build is different. > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > While it may be too far stretched to call this a bug, solving this might > >> >> >> > > make BTF adoption easier. I'd natively think that we could further split > >> >> >> > > base BTF into two part to avoid this issue, where .BTF only contain exported > >> >> >> > > types, and the other (still residing in vmlinux) holds the unexported types. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > What is the exported types? The types used by export symbols? > >> >> >> > This for sure will increase btf handling complexity. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> And it will not actually help. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> We have modversion ABI which checks the checksum of the symbols that the > >> >> >> module imports and fails the load if the checksum for these symbols does > >> >> >> not match. It's not concerned with symbols not exported, it's not > >> >> >> concerned with symbols not used by the module. This is something that is > >> >> >> sustainable across kernel rebuilds with minor fixes/features and what > >> >> >> distributions watch for. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Now with BTF the situation is vastly different. There are at least three > >> >> >> bugs: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> - The BTF check is global for all symbols, not for the symbols the > >> >> >> module uses. This is not sustainable. Given the BTF is supposed to > >> >> >> allow linking BPF programs that were built in completely different > >> >> >> environment with the kernel it is completely within the scope of BTF > >> >> >> to solve this problem, it's just neglected. > >> >> > > >> >> > You refer to BTF use in CO-RE with the latter. It's just one > >> >> > application of BTF and it doesn't follow that you can do the same with > >> >> > module BTF. It's not a neglect, it's a very big technical difficulty. > >> >> > > >> >> > Each module's BTFs are designed as logical extensions of vmlinux BTF. > >> >> > And each module BTF is independent and isolated from other modules > >> >> > extension of the same vmlinux BTF. The way that BTF format is > >> >> > designed, any tiny difference in vmlinux BTF effectively invalidates > >> >> > all modules' BTFs and they have to be rebuilt. > >> >> > > >> >> > Imagine that only one BTF type is added to vmlinux BTF. Last BTF type > >> >> > ID in vmlinux BTF is shifted from, say, 1000 to 1001. While previously > >> >> > every module's BTF type ID started with 1001, now they all have to > >> >> > start with 1002 and be shifted by 1. > >> >> > > >> >> > Now let's say that the order of two BTF types in vmlinux BTF is > >> >> > changed, say type 10 becomes type 20 and type 20 becomes type 10 (just > >> >> > because of slight difference in DWARF, for instance). Any type > >> >> > reference to 10 or 20 in any module BTF has to be renumbered now. > >> >> > > >> >> > Another one, let's say we add a new string to vmlinux BTF string > >> >> > section somewhere at the beginning, say "abc" at offset 100. Any > >> >> > string offset after 100 now has to be shifted *both* in vmlinux BTF > >> >> > and all module BTFs. And also any string reference in module BTFs have > >> >> > to be adjusted as well because now each module's BTF's logical string > >> >> > offset is starting at 4 logical bytes higher (due to "abc\0" being > >> >> > added and shifting everything right). > >> >> > > >> >> > As you can see, any tiny change in vmlinux BTF, no matter where, > >> >> > beginning, middle, or end, causes massive changes in type IDs and > >> >> > offsets everywhere. It's impractical to do any local adjustments, it's > >> >> > much simpler and more reliable to completely regenerate BTF > >> >> > completely. > >> >> > >> >> This seems incredibly brittle, though? IIUC this means that if you want > >> >> BTF in your modules you *must* have not only the kernel headers of the > >> >> kernel it's going to run on, but the full BTF information for the exact > >> > > >> > From BTF perspective, only vmlinux BTF. Having exact kernel headers > >> > would minimize type information duplication. > >> > >> Right, I meant you'd need the kernel headers to compile the module, and > >> the vmlinux BTF to build the module BTF info. > >> > >> >> kernel image you're going to load that module on? How is that supposed > >> >> to work for any kind of environment where everything is not built > >> >> together? Third-party modules for distribution kernels is the obvious > >> >> example that comes to mind here, but as this thread shows, they don't > >> >> necessarily even have to be third party... > >> >> > >> >> How would you go about "completely regenerating BTF" in practice for a > >> >> third-party module, say? > >> > > >> > Great questions. I was kind of hoping you'll have some suggestions as > >> > well, though. Not just complaints. > >> > >> Well, I kinda took your "not really a bug either" comment to mean you > >> weren't really open to changing the current behaviour. But if that was a > >> misunderstanding on my part, I do have one thought: > >> > >> The "partial BTF" thing in the modules is done to save space, right? > >> I.e., in principle there would be nothing preventing a module from > >> including a full (self-contained) set of BTF in its .ko when it is > >> compiled? Because if so, we could allow that as an optional mode that > >> can be enabled if you don't mind taking the size hit (any idea how large > >> that usually is, BTW?). > > > > This seems quite nice IMO as no change need to be made on the generation > > side of existing BTF tooling. I test it out on openSUSE Tumbleweed 5.16.5 > > kernel modules, and for the sake of completeness, includes both the case > > where BTF is stripped and using a pre-trained zstd dictionary as well. > > > > Uncompressed, no BTF 362MiB -27% > > Uncompressed, parital BTF 499MiB +0% > > Uncompressed, self-contained BTF 1026MiB +105% > > > > Zstd compressed, no BTF 95MiB -35% > > Zstd compressed, partial BTF 147MiB +0% > > Zstd compressed, self-contained BTF 361MiB +145% > > Zstd compressed (trained), self-contained BTF 299MiB +103% > > > > So we'd expect quite a bit of hit as the size of kernel module would double. > > > > For servers and workstation environment an additional ~200MiB of disk space > > seems like tolerable trade-off if it can get third-party kernel module to > > work. But I cannot speak for other kind of use cases. > > Well, there are also in-between tradeoffs (i.e., you can build a subset > of the modules with self-contained BTF and a subset with partial BTF > depending on what fits your build environment). As for that you would typically want in-tree modules with partial BTF. It's a bug if they don't match, and if you can ignore the non-matching BTF you should bee able to boot a system that is functional enough to re-install the kernel. Today nothing critical depends on CO-RE. On the othere hand if you build something out-of-tree be it virtualbox or some module updated with cutting edge experimental changes you will likely want full BTF. Thanks Michal
