On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 4:58 PM Pu Lehui <pulehui@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 2021/12/20 22:02, Pu Lehui wrote: > > > > > > On 2021/12/18 0:45, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 6:25 PM Pu Lehui <pulehui@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 2021/12/16 12:06, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > >>>> On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 5:54 AM Pu Lehui <pulehui@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> When building bpf selftests on arm64, the following error will occur: > >>>>> > >>>>> progs/loop2.c:20:7: error: incomplete definition of type 'struct > >>>>> user_pt_regs' > >>>>> > >>>>> Some archs, like arm64 and riscv, use userspace pt_regs in > >>>>> bpf_tracing.h, which causes build failure when bpf prog use > >>>>> macro in bpf_tracing.h. So let's use vmlinux.h directly. > >>>> > >>>> We could probably also extend bpf_tracing.h to work with > >>>> kernel-defined pt_regs, just like we do for x86 (see __KERNEL__ and > >>>> __VMLINUX_H__ checks). It's more work, but will benefit other end > >>>> users, not just selftests. > >>>> > >>> It might change a lot. We can use header file directory generated by > >>> "make headers_install" to fix it. > >> > >> We don't have dependency on "make headers_install" and I'd rather not > >> add it. > >> > >> What do you mean by "change a lot"? > >> > > Maybe I misunderstood your advice. Your suggestion might be to extend > > bpf_tracing.h to kernel-space pt_regs, while some archs, like arm64, yes > > only support user-space. So the patch might be like this: > > > > diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_tracing.h b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_tracing.h > > index db05a5937105..2c3cb8e9ae92 100644 > > --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_tracing.h > > +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_tracing.h > > @@ -195,9 +195,13 @@ struct pt_regs; > > > > #elif defined(bpf_target_arm64) > > > > -struct pt_regs; > > +#if defined(__KERNEL__) > > +#define PT_REGS_ARM64 const volatile struct pt_regs > > +#else > > /* arm64 provides struct user_pt_regs instead of struct pt_regs to > > userspace */ > > #define PT_REGS_ARM64 const volatile struct user_pt_regs > > +#endif > > + > > #define PT_REGS_PARM1(x) (((PT_REGS_ARM64 *)(x))->regs[0]) > > #define PT_REGS_PARM2(x) (((PT_REGS_ARM64 *)(x))->regs[1]) > > #define PT_REGS_PARM3(x) (((PT_REGS_ARM64 *)(x))->regs[2]) > > > Please ignore the last reply. User-space pt_regs of arm64/s390 is the > first part of the kernel-space's, it should has covered both kernel and > userspace. Alright, so is there still a problem or not? Looking at the definition of struct pt_regs for arm64, just casting struct pt_regs to struct user_pt_regs will indeed just work. So in that case, what was your original issue? > >>> > >>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile > >>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile > >>> @@ -294,7 +294,8 @@ MENDIAN=$(if > >>> $(IS_LITTLE_ENDIAN),-mlittle-endian,-mbig-endian) > >>> CLANG_SYS_INCLUDES = $(call get_sys_includes,$(CLANG)) > >>> BPF_CFLAGS = -g -D__TARGET_ARCH_$(SRCARCH) $(MENDIAN) \ > >>> -I$(INCLUDE_DIR) -I$(CURDIR) -I$(APIDIR) \ > >>> - -I$(abspath $(OUTPUT)/../usr/include) > >>> + -I$(abspath $(OUTPUT)/../usr/include) \ > >>> + -I../../../../usr/include > >>>>> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>> --- > >>>>> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop1.c | 8 ++------ > >>>>> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop2.c | 8 ++------ > >>>>> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop3.c | 8 ++------ > >>>>> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop6.c | 20 > >>>>> ++++++------------- > >>>>> .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_overhead.c | 8 ++------ > >>>>> .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_probe_user.c | 6 +----- > >>>>> 6 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-) > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> [...] > >>>> . > >>>> > >> . > >> > > .
