Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/2] Implement BPF formatted output helpers with
 bstr_printf
To:     Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org>, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org,
        kpsingh@kernel.org, jackmanb@google.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20210423011517.4069221-1-revest@chromium.org>
From:   Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Message-ID: <8f89faf1-d7e6-ebe0-fb7d-c5b8243d140a@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Date:   Fri, 23 Apr 2021 10:50:22 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210423011517.4069221-1-revest@chromium.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 23/04/2021 03.15, Florent Revest wrote:
> Our formatted output helpers are currently implemented with
> snprintf-like functions which take arguments as va_list but the types
> stored in a va_list need to be known at compilation time which causes
> problems when dealing with arguments from the BPF world that are always
> u64 but considered differently depending on the format specifiers they
> are associated with at runtime.
> 
> This series replaces snprintf usages with bstr_printf calls. This lets
> us construct a binary representation of arguments in bpf_printf_prepare
> at runtime that matches an ABI that is neither arch nor compiler
> specific.
> 
> This solves a bug reported by Rasmus Villemoes that would mangle
> arguments on 32 bit machines.

That's not entirely accurate. The arguments are also mangled on x86-64,
it's just that in a few cases that goes unnoticed. That's why I
suggested you try and take your test case (which I assume had been
passing with flying colours on x86-64) and rearrange the specifiers,
arguments and expected output string so that the (morally) 32 bit
arguments end up beyond those-that-end-up-in-the-reg_save_area.

IOWs, it is the 32 bit arguments that are mangled (because they get
passed as-if they were actually 64 bits), and that applies on all
architectures; nothing to do with sizeof(long).

Rasmus