On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 10:36:28PM -0800, Yonghong Song wrote:
> On 2/11/22 9:40 PM, Shung-Hsi Yu wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 02:59:03PM -0800, Yonghong Song wrote:
> > > On 2/10/22 2:34 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 10:17 AM Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > On 2/10/22 2:01 AM, Michal Suchánek wrote:
> > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > - It is possible to load modules with no BTF but not modules with
> > > > > > non-matching BTF. Surely the non-matching BTF could be discarded.
> > > > > > - BTF is part of vermagic. This is completely pointless since modules
> > > > > > without BTF can be loaded on BTF kernel. Surely it would not be too
> > > > > > difficult to do the reverse as well. Given BTF must pass extra check
> > > > > > to be used having it in vermagic is just useless moise.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Does that sound like something reasonable to work on?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ## Root case (in case anyone is interested in a verbose version)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On openSUSE Tumbleweed there can be several builds of the same source. Since
> > > > > > > > the source is the same, the binaries are simply replaced when a package with
> > > > > > > > a larger build number is installed during upgrade.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In our case, a rebuild is triggered[2], and resulted in changes in base BTF.
> > > > > > > > More precisely, the BTF_KIND_FUNC{,_PROTO} of i2c_smbus_check_pec(u8 cpec,
> > > > > > > > struct i2c_msg *msg) and inet_lhash2_bucket_sk(struct inet_hashinfo *h,
> > > > > > > > struct sock *sk) was added to the base BTF of 5.15.12-1.3. Those functions
> > > > > > > > are previously missing in base BTF of 5.15.12-1.1.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As stated in [2] below, I think we should understand why rebuild is
> > > > > > > triggered. If the rebuild for vmlinux is triggered, why the modules cannot
> > > > > > > be rebuild at the same time?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > They do get rebuilt. However, if you are running the kernel and install
> > > > > > the update you get the new modules with the old kernel. If the install
> > > > > > script fails to copy the kernel to your EFI partition based on the fact
> > > > > > a kernel with the same filename is alreasy there you get the same.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you have 'stable' distribution adding new symbols is normal and it
> > > > > > does not break module loading without BTF but it breaks BTF.
> > > > >
> > > > > Okay, I see. One possible solution is that if kernel module btf
> > > > > does not match vmlinux btf, the kernel module btf will be ignored
> > > > > with a dmesg warning but kernel module load will proceed as normal.
> > > > > I think this might be also useful for bpf lskel kernel modules as
> > > > > well which tries to be portable (with CO-RE) for different kernels.
> > > >
> > > > That sounds like #2 that Michal is proposing:
> > > > "It is possible to load modules with no BTF but not modules with
> > > > non-matching BTF. Surely the non-matching BTF could be discarded."
> >
> > Since we're talking about matching check, I'd like bring up another issue.
> >
> > AFAICT with current form of BTF, checking whether BTF on kernel module
> > matches cannot be made entirely robust without a new version of btf_header
> > that contain info about the base BTF.
>
> The base BTF is always the one associated with running kernel and typically
> the BTF is under /sys/kernel/btf/vmlinux. Did I miss
> anything here?
>
> > As effective as the checks are in this case, by detecting a type name being
> > an empty string and thus conclude it's non-matching, with some (bad) luck a
> > non-matching BTF could pass these checks a gets loaded.
>
> Could you be a little bit more specific about the 'bad luck' a
> non-matching BTF could get loaded? An example will be great.
Let me try take a jab at it. Say here's a hypothetical BTF for a kernel
module which only type information for `struct something *`:
[5] PTR '(anon)' type_id=4
Which is built upon the follow base BTF:
[1] INT 'unsigned char' size=1 bits_offset=0 nr_bits=8 encoding=(none)
[2] PTR '(anon)' type_id=3
[3] STRUCT 'list_head' size=16 vlen=2
'next' type_id=2 bits_offset=0
'prev' type_id=2 bits_offset=64
[4] STRUCT 'something' size=2 vlen=2
'locked' type_id=1 bits_offset=0
'pending' type_id=1 bits_offset=8
Due to the situation mentioned in the beginning of the thread, the *runtime*
kernel have a different base BTF, in this case type IDs are offset by 1 due
to an additional typedef entry:
[1] TYPEDEF 'u8' type_id=1
[2] INT 'unsigned char' size=1 bits_offset=0 nr_bits=8 encoding=(none)
[3] PTR '(anon)' type_id=3
[4] STRUCT 'list_head' size=16 vlen=2
'next' type_id=2 bits_offset=0
'prev' type_id=2 bits_offset=64
[5] STRUCT 'something' size=2 vlen=2
'locked' type_id=1 bits_offset=0
'pending' type_id=1 bits_offset=8
Then when loading the BTF on kernel module on the runtime, the kernel will
mistakenly interprets "PTR '(anon)' type_id=4" as `struct list_head *`
rather than `struct something *`.
Does this should possible? (at least theoretically)
> > > > That's probably the simplest way forward.
> > > >
> > > > The patch
> > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20220209052141.140063-1-connoro@xxxxxxxxxx/
> > > > shouldn't be necessary too.
> > >
> > > Right the patch tried to address this issue and if we allow
> > > non-matching BTF is ignored and then treaking DEBUG_INFO_BTF_MODULES
> > > is not necessary.
> >
> > Not being able to load kernel module with non-matching BTF and the absence
> > of robust matching check are the two reasons that lead us to the same path
> > of disabling DEBUG_INFO_BTF_MODULES a while back.
> >
> > Ignoring non-matching BTF will solve the former, but not the latter, so I'd
> > hope that the above patch get's taken (though I'm obviously biased).
