On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 5:55 PM Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 08:28:40PM -0800, Joanne Koong wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 10:08 AM Alexei Starovoitov
> > <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 7:51 AM Joanne Koong <joannelkoong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 5) progs/dynptr_success.c
> > > > * Add test case "test_skb_readonly" for testing attempts at writes
> > > > on a prog type with read-only skb ctx.
> > > > * Add "test_dynptr_skb_data" for testing that bpf_dynptr_data isn't
> > > > supported for skb progs.
> > >
> > > I added
> > > +dynptr/test_dynptr_skb_data
> > > +dynptr/test_skb_readonly
> > > to DENYLIST.s390x and applied.
> >
> > Thanks, I'm still not sure why s390x cannot load these programs. It is
> > being loaded in the same way as other tests like
> > test_parse_tcp_hdr_opt() are loading programs. I will keep looking
> > some more into this
>
> Hi,
>
> I believe the culprit is:
>
> insn->imm = BPF_CALL_IMM(bpf_dynptr_from_skb_rdonly);
>
> s390x needs to know the kfunc model in order to emit the call (like
> i386), but after this assignment it's no longer possible to look it
> up in kfunc_tab by insn->imm. x86_64 does not need this, because its
> ABI is exactly the same as BPF ABI.
>
> The simplest solution seems to be adding an artificial kfunc_desc
> like this:
>
> {
> .func_model = desc->func_model, /* model must be compatible */
> .func_id = 0, /* unused at this point */
> .imm = insn->imm, /* new target */
> .offset = 0, /* unused at this point */
> }
>
> here and also after this assignment:
>
> insn->imm = BPF_CALL_IMM(xdp_kfunc);
>
> What do you think?
Ohh interesting! This makes sense to me. In particular, you're
referring to the bpf_jit_find_kfunc_model() call in bpf_jit_insn() (in
arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c) as the one that fails out whenever
insn->imm gets set, correct?
I like your proposed solution, I agree that this looks like the
simplest, though maybe we should replace the existing kfunc_desc
instead of adding it so we don't have to deal with the edge case of
reaching MAX_KFUNC_DESCS? To get the func model of the new insn->imm,
it seems pretty straightforward, it looks like we can just use
btf_distill_func_proto(). or call add_kfunc_call() directly, which
would do everything needed, but adds an additional unnecessary sort
and more overhead for replacing (eg we'd need to first swap the old
kfunc_desc with the last tab->descs[tab->nr_descs] entry and then
delete the old kfunc_desc before adding the new one). What are your
thoughts?
>
> [...]
>
> Best regards,
> Ilya
