On Tue, 2022-02-22 at 01:43 +0100, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
> On Mon, 2022-02-21 at 22:39 +0100, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
> > On Mon, 2022-02-21 at 19:03 +0100, Jakub Sitnicki wrote:
> > > Shifting 16-bit type by 16 bits is implementation-defined for BPF
> > > programs.
> > > Don't rely on it in case it is causing the test failures we are
> > > seeing on
> > > s390x z15 target.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 2ed0dc5937d3 ("selftests/bpf: Cover 4-byte load from
> > > remote_port in bpf_sk_lookup")
> > > Reported-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > I don't have a dev env for s390x/z15 set up yet, so can't
> > > definitely
> > > confirm the fix.
> > > That said, it seems worth fixing either way.
> > >
> > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_sk_lookup.c | 3 ++-
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_sk_lookup.c
> > > b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_sk_lookup.c
> > > index bf5b7caefdd0..7d47276a8964 100644
> > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_sk_lookup.c
> > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_sk_lookup.c
> > > @@ -65,6 +65,7 @@ static const __u32 KEY_SERVER_A = SERVER_A;
> > > static const __u32 KEY_SERVER_B = SERVER_B;
> > >
> > > static const __u16 SRC_PORT = bpf_htons(8008);
> > > +static const __u32 SRC_PORT_U32 = bpf_htonl(8008U << 16);
> > > static const __u32 SRC_IP4 = IP4(127, 0, 0, 2);
> > > static const __u32 SRC_IP6[] = IP6(0xfd000000, 0x0, 0x0,
> > > 0x00000002);
> > >
> > > @@ -421,7 +422,7 @@ int ctx_narrow_access(struct bpf_sk_lookup
> > > *ctx)
> > >
> > > /* Load from remote_port field with zero padding
> > > (backward
> > > compatibility) */
> > > val_u32 = *(__u32 *)&ctx->remote_port;
> > > - if (val_u32 != bpf_htonl(bpf_ntohs(SRC_PORT) << 16))
> > > + if (val_u32 != SRC_PORT_U32)
> > > return SK_DROP;
> > >
> > > /* Narrow loads from local_port field. Expect DST_PORT.
> > > */
> >
> > Unfortunately this doesn't help with the s390 problem.
> > I'll try to debug this.
>
> I have to admit I have a hard time wrapping my head around the
> requirements here.
>
> Based on the pre-9a69e2b385f4 code, do I understand correctly that
> for the following input
>
> Port: 0x1f48
> SRC_PORT: 0x481f
>
> we expect the following results for different kinds of loads:
>
> Size Offset LE BE
> BPF_B 0 0x1f 0
> BPF_B 1 0x48 0
> BPF_B 2 0 0x48
> BPF_B 3 0 0x1f
> BPF_H 0 0x481f 0
> BPF_H 1 0 0x481f
> BPF_W 0 0x481f 0x481f
>
> and this is guaranteed by the struct bpf_sk_lookup ABI? Because then
> it
> looks as if 9a69e2b385f4 breaks it on big-endian as follows:
>
> Size Offset BE-9a69e2b385f4
> BPF_B 0 0x48
> BPF_B 1 0x1f
> BPF_B 2 0
> BPF_B 3 0
> BPF_H 0 0x481f
> BPF_H 1 0
> BPF_W 0 0x481f0000
Sorry, I worded this incorrectly: 9a69e2b385f4 did not change the
kernel behavior, the ABI is not broken and the old compiled code should
continue to work.
What the second table really shows are what the results should be
according to the 9a69e2b385f4 struct bpf_sk_lookup definition, which I
still think is broken on big-endian and needs to be adjusted to match
the ABI.
I noticed one other strange thing in the meantime: loads from
*(__u32 *)&ctx->remote_port, *(__u16 *)&ctx->remote_port and
*((__u16 *)&ctx->remote_port + 1) all produce 8008 on s390, which is
clearly inconsistent. It looks as if convert_ctx_accesses() needs to be
adjusted to handle combinations like ctx_field_size == 4 && size == 2
&& target_size == 2. I will continue with this tomorrow.
> Or is the old behavior a bug and this new one is desirable?
> 9a69e2b385f4 has no Fixes: tag, so I assume that's the former :-(
>
> In which case, would it make sense to fix it by swapping remote_port
> and :16 in bpf_sk_lookup on big-endian?
>
> Best regards,
> Ilya
