The bpf_tail_call_static function is currently not defined unless
using clang >= 8.
To support bpf_tail_call_static on GCC we can check if __clang__ is
not defined to enable bpf_tail_call_static.
Signed-off-by: James Hilliard <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <[email protected]>
---
tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h | 10 +++++-----
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
index 7349b16b8e2f..30fc95e7cd76 100644
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
@@ -131,7 +131,7 @@
/*
* Helper function to perform a tail call with a constant/immediate map slot.
*/
-#if __clang_major__ >= 8 && defined(__bpf__)
+#if (!defined(__clang__) || __clang_major__ >= 8) && defined(__bpf__)
static __always_inline void
bpf_tail_call_static(void *ctx, const void *map, const __u32 slot)
{
@@ -139,8 +139,8 @@ bpf_tail_call_static(void *ctx, const void *map, const __u32 slot)
__bpf_unreachable();
/*
- * Provide a hard guarantee that LLVM won't optimize setting r2 (map
- * pointer) and r3 (constant map index) from _different paths_ ending
+ * Provide a hard guarantee that the compiler won't optimize setting r2
+ * (map pointer) and r3 (constant map index) from _different paths_ ending
* up at the _same_ call insn as otherwise we won't be able to use the
* jmpq/nopl retpoline-free patching by the x86-64 JIT in the kernel
* given they mismatch. See also d2e4c1e6c294 ("bpf: Constant map key
@@ -148,8 +148,8 @@ bpf_tail_call_static(void *ctx, const void *map, const __u32 slot)
*
* Note on clobber list: we need to stay in-line with BPF calling
* convention, so even if we don't end up using r0, r4, r5, we need
- * to mark them as clobber so that LLVM doesn't end up using them
- * before / after the call.
+ * to mark them as clobber so that the compiler doesn't end up using
+ * them before / after the call.
*/
asm volatile("r1 = %[ctx]\n\t"
"r2 = %[map]\n\t"
--
2.34.1
On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 3:46 PM James Hilliard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The bpf_tail_call_static function is currently not defined unless
> using clang >= 8.
>
> To support bpf_tail_call_static on GCC we can check if __clang__ is
> not defined to enable bpf_tail_call_static.
>
> Signed-off-by: James Hilliard <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <[email protected]>
> ---
> tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h | 10 +++++-----
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
> index 7349b16b8e2f..30fc95e7cd76 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
> @@ -131,7 +131,7 @@
> /*
> * Helper function to perform a tail call with a constant/immediate map slot.
> */
> -#if __clang_major__ >= 8 && defined(__bpf__)
> +#if (!defined(__clang__) || __clang_major__ >= 8) && defined(__bpf__)
> static __always_inline void
> bpf_tail_call_static(void *ctx, const void *map, const __u32 slot)
> {
> @@ -139,8 +139,8 @@ bpf_tail_call_static(void *ctx, const void *map, const __u32 slot)
> __bpf_unreachable();
>
> /*
> - * Provide a hard guarantee that LLVM won't optimize setting r2 (map
> - * pointer) and r3 (constant map index) from _different paths_ ending
> + * Provide a hard guarantee that the compiler won't optimize setting r2
> + * (map pointer) and r3 (constant map index) from _different paths_ ending
> * up at the _same_ call insn as otherwise we won't be able to use the
> * jmpq/nopl retpoline-free patching by the x86-64 JIT in the kernel
> * given they mismatch. See also d2e4c1e6c294 ("bpf: Constant map key
> @@ -148,8 +148,8 @@ bpf_tail_call_static(void *ctx, const void *map, const __u32 slot)
> *
> * Note on clobber list: we need to stay in-line with BPF calling
> * convention, so even if we don't end up using r0, r4, r5, we need
> - * to mark them as clobber so that LLVM doesn't end up using them
> - * before / after the call.
> + * to mark them as clobber so that the compiler doesn't end up using
> + * them before / after the call.
> */
> asm volatile("r1 = %[ctx]\n\t"
> "r2 = %[map]\n\t"
will this compile as is on GCC-BPF? I'm trying to understand what's
the point. Once GCC supports this ASM syntax we can add similar check
to __clang_major__, instead of allowing it for all GCC versions?
We must have done __clang_major__ check for a reason, old Clangs
probably had some problems compiling this. Maybe Daniel remembers?
> --
> 2.34.1
>
On 9/9/22 5:26 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 3:46 PM James Hilliard <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> The bpf_tail_call_static function is currently not defined unless
>> using clang >= 8.
>>
>> To support bpf_tail_call_static on GCC we can check if __clang__ is
>> not defined to enable bpf_tail_call_static.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: James Hilliard <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h | 10 +++++-----
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
>> index 7349b16b8e2f..30fc95e7cd76 100644
>> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
>> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
>> @@ -131,7 +131,7 @@
>> /*
>> * Helper function to perform a tail call with a constant/immediate map slot.
>> */
>> -#if __clang_major__ >= 8 && defined(__bpf__)
>> +#if (!defined(__clang__) || __clang_major__ >= 8) && defined(__bpf__)
>> static __always_inline void
>> bpf_tail_call_static(void *ctx, const void *map, const __u32 slot)
>> {
>> @@ -139,8 +139,8 @@ bpf_tail_call_static(void *ctx, const void *map, const __u32 slot)
>> __bpf_unreachable();
>>
>> /*
>> - * Provide a hard guarantee that LLVM won't optimize setting r2 (map
>> - * pointer) and r3 (constant map index) from _different paths_ ending
>> + * Provide a hard guarantee that the compiler won't optimize setting r2
>> + * (map pointer) and r3 (constant map index) from _different paths_ ending
>> * up at the _same_ call insn as otherwise we won't be able to use the
>> * jmpq/nopl retpoline-free patching by the x86-64 JIT in the kernel
>> * given they mismatch. See also d2e4c1e6c294 ("bpf: Constant map key
>> @@ -148,8 +148,8 @@ bpf_tail_call_static(void *ctx, const void *map, const __u32 slot)
>> *
>> * Note on clobber list: we need to stay in-line with BPF calling
>> * convention, so even if we don't end up using r0, r4, r5, we need
>> - * to mark them as clobber so that LLVM doesn't end up using them
>> - * before / after the call.
>> + * to mark them as clobber so that the compiler doesn't end up using
>> + * them before / after the call.
>> */
>> asm volatile("r1 = %[ctx]\n\t"
>> "r2 = %[map]\n\t"
>
> will this compile as is on GCC-BPF? I'm trying to understand what's
> the point. Once GCC supports this ASM syntax we can add similar check
> to __clang_major__, instead of allowing it for all GCC versions?
>
> We must have done __clang_major__ check for a reason, old Clangs
> probably had some problems compiling this. Maybe Daniel remembers?
Yes, clang >= 8 is needed to ensure 'slot' is propagated as 'const'
instead of variables. clang 6 added support for inline asm but clang 8
is needed for above 'const' propagation into asm code.
>
>> --
>> 2.34.1
>>
On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 6:26 PM Andrii Nakryiko
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 3:46 PM James Hilliard <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > The bpf_tail_call_static function is currently not defined unless
> > using clang >= 8.
> >
> > To support bpf_tail_call_static on GCC we can check if __clang__ is
> > not defined to enable bpf_tail_call_static.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: James Hilliard <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h | 10 +++++-----
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
> > index 7349b16b8e2f..30fc95e7cd76 100644
> > --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
> > +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
> > @@ -131,7 +131,7 @@
> > /*
> > * Helper function to perform a tail call with a constant/immediate map slot.
> > */
> > -#if __clang_major__ >= 8 && defined(__bpf__)
> > +#if (!defined(__clang__) || __clang_major__ >= 8) && defined(__bpf__)
> > static __always_inline void
> > bpf_tail_call_static(void *ctx, const void *map, const __u32 slot)
> > {
> > @@ -139,8 +139,8 @@ bpf_tail_call_static(void *ctx, const void *map, const __u32 slot)
> > __bpf_unreachable();
> >
> > /*
> > - * Provide a hard guarantee that LLVM won't optimize setting r2 (map
> > - * pointer) and r3 (constant map index) from _different paths_ ending
> > + * Provide a hard guarantee that the compiler won't optimize setting r2
> > + * (map pointer) and r3 (constant map index) from _different paths_ ending
> > * up at the _same_ call insn as otherwise we won't be able to use the
> > * jmpq/nopl retpoline-free patching by the x86-64 JIT in the kernel
> > * given they mismatch. See also d2e4c1e6c294 ("bpf: Constant map key
> > @@ -148,8 +148,8 @@ bpf_tail_call_static(void *ctx, const void *map, const __u32 slot)
> > *
> > * Note on clobber list: we need to stay in-line with BPF calling
> > * convention, so even if we don't end up using r0, r4, r5, we need
> > - * to mark them as clobber so that LLVM doesn't end up using them
> > - * before / after the call.
> > + * to mark them as clobber so that the compiler doesn't end up using
> > + * them before / after the call.
> > */
> > asm volatile("r1 = %[ctx]\n\t"
> > "r2 = %[map]\n\t"
>
> will this compile as is on GCC-BPF? I'm trying to understand what's
> the point. Once GCC supports this ASM syntax we can add similar check
> to __clang_major__, instead of allowing it for all GCC versions?
So, it's a bit different since the ASM syntax issue is more of an
issue with GAS,
we would need a check along these lines I think for a proper migration path:
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/
We would set something like once GAS support for the llvm syntax is added:
.ifdef .gasversion. < 24000
I don't think we can do a compiler version check here like with llvm since GCC
release cycles are out of sync with GAS(llvm assembler is kept in sync with the
compiler AFAIU).
>
> We must have done __clang_major__ check for a reason, old Clangs
> probably had some problems compiling this. Maybe Daniel remembers?
>
> > --
> > 2.34.1
> >