Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220426140924.3308472-1-pulehui@huawei.com> <20220426140924.3308472-2-pulehui@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220426140924.3308472-2-pulehui@huawei.com>
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 27 Apr 2022 15:33:21 -0700
Message-ID: <CAEf4BzYvGaskrquK1hsKv6h7iz0NXWCNYn_zJEHvYUBYC=2UoA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 1/2] bpf: Unify data extension operation of
 jited_ksyms and jited_linfo
To:     Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
Cc:     bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
        Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        =?UTF-8?B?QmrDtnJuIFTDtnBlbA==?= <bjorn@kernel.org>,
        Luke Nelson <luke.r.nels@gmail.com>,
        Xi Wang <xi.wang@gmail.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>, Martin Lau <kafai@fb.com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
        john fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 6:40 AM Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> We found that 32-bit environment can not print bpf line info due
> to data inconsistency between jited_ksyms[0] and jited_linfo[0].
>
> For example:
> jited_kyms[0] = 0xb800067c, jited_linfo[0] = 0xffffffffb800067c
>
> We know that both of them store bpf func address, but due to the
> different data extension operations when extended to u64, they may
> not be the same. We need to unify the data extension operations of
> them.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
> ---
>  kernel/bpf/syscall.c                         |  5 ++++-
>  tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c               |  8 ++++----
>  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c | 18 +++++++++---------

please split kernel changes, libbpf changes, and selftests/bpf changes
into separate patches

>  3 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> index e9621cfa09f2..4c417c806d92 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> @@ -3868,13 +3868,16 @@ static int bpf_prog_get_info_by_fd(struct file *file,
>                 info.nr_jited_line_info = 0;
>         if (info.nr_jited_line_info && ulen) {
>                 if (bpf_dump_raw_ok(file->f_cred)) {
> +                       unsigned long jited_linfo_addr;
>                         __u64 __user *user_linfo;
>                         u32 i;
>
>                         user_linfo = u64_to_user_ptr(info.jited_line_info);
>                         ulen = min_t(u32, info.nr_jited_line_info, ulen);
>                         for (i = 0; i < ulen; i++) {
> -                               if (put_user((__u64)(long)prog->aux->jited_linfo[i],
> +                               jited_linfo_addr = (unsigned long)
> +                                       prog->aux->jited_linfo[i];
> +                               if (put_user((__u64) jited_linfo_addr,
>                                              &user_linfo[i]))
>                                         return -EFAULT;
>                         }
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c
> index 5c503096ef43..5cf41a563ef5 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c
> @@ -127,7 +127,7 @@ struct bpf_prog_linfo *bpf_prog_linfo__new(const struct bpf_prog_info *info)
>         prog_linfo->raw_linfo = malloc(data_sz);
>         if (!prog_linfo->raw_linfo)
>                 goto err_free;
> -       memcpy(prog_linfo->raw_linfo, (void *)(long)info->line_info, data_sz);
> +       memcpy(prog_linfo->raw_linfo, (void *)(unsigned long)info->line_info, data_sz);
>
>         nr_jited_func = info->nr_jited_ksyms;
>         if (!nr_jited_func ||
> @@ -148,7 +148,7 @@ struct bpf_prog_linfo *bpf_prog_linfo__new(const struct bpf_prog_info *info)
>         if (!prog_linfo->raw_jited_linfo)
>                 goto err_free;
>         memcpy(prog_linfo->raw_jited_linfo,
> -              (void *)(long)info->jited_line_info, data_sz);
> +              (void *)(unsigned long)info->jited_line_info, data_sz);
>
>         /* Number of jited_line_info per jited func */
>         prog_linfo->nr_jited_linfo_per_func = malloc(nr_jited_func *
> @@ -166,8 +166,8 @@ struct bpf_prog_linfo *bpf_prog_linfo__new(const struct bpf_prog_info *info)
>                 goto err_free;
>
>         if (dissect_jited_func(prog_linfo,
> -                              (__u64 *)(long)info->jited_ksyms,
> -                              (__u32 *)(long)info->jited_func_lens))
> +                              (__u64 *)(unsigned long)info->jited_ksyms,
> +                              (__u32 *)(unsigned long)info->jited_func_lens))

so I'm trying to understand how this is changing anything for 32-bit
architecture and I must be missing something, sorry if I'm being
dense. The example you used below

jited_kyms[0] = 0xb800067c, jited_linfo[0] = 0xffffffffb800067c

Wouldn't (unsigned long)0xffffffffb800067c == (long)0xffffffffb800067c
== 0xb800067c ?

isn't sizeof(long) == sizeof(void*) == 4?

It would be nice if you could elaborate a bit more on what problems
did you see in practice?

>                 goto err_free;
>
>         return prog_linfo;
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c
> index 84aae639ddb5..d9ba1ec1d5b3 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c
> @@ -6451,8 +6451,8 @@ static int test_get_linfo(const struct prog_info_raw_test *test,
>                   info.nr_jited_line_info, jited_cnt,
>                   info.line_info_rec_size, rec_size,
>                   info.jited_line_info_rec_size, jited_rec_size,
> -                 (void *)(long)info.line_info,
> -                 (void *)(long)info.jited_line_info)) {
> +                 (void *)(unsigned long)info.line_info,
> +                 (void *)(unsigned long)info.jited_line_info)) {
>                 err = -1;
>                 goto done;
>         }
> @@ -6500,8 +6500,8 @@ static int test_get_linfo(const struct prog_info_raw_test *test,
>         }
>
>         if (CHECK(jited_linfo[0] != jited_ksyms[0],
> -                 "jited_linfo[0]:%lx != jited_ksyms[0]:%lx",
> -                 (long)(jited_linfo[0]), (long)(jited_ksyms[0]))) {
> +                 "jited_linfo[0]:%llx != jited_ksyms[0]:%llx",
> +                 jited_linfo[0], jited_ksyms[0])) {
>                 err = -1;
>                 goto done;
>         }
> @@ -6519,16 +6519,16 @@ static int test_get_linfo(const struct prog_info_raw_test *test,
>                 }
>
>                 if (CHECK(jited_linfo[i] <= jited_linfo[i - 1],
> -                         "jited_linfo[%u]:%lx <= jited_linfo[%u]:%lx",
> -                         i, (long)jited_linfo[i],
> -                         i - 1, (long)(jited_linfo[i - 1]))) {
> +                         "jited_linfo[%u]:%llx <= jited_linfo[%u]:%llx",
> +                         i, jited_linfo[i],
> +                         i - 1, (jited_linfo[i - 1]))) {
>                         err = -1;
>                         goto done;
>                 }
>
>                 if (CHECK(jited_linfo[i] - cur_func_ksyms > cur_func_len,
> -                         "jited_linfo[%u]:%lx - %lx > %u",
> -                         i, (long)jited_linfo[i], (long)cur_func_ksyms,
> +                         "jited_linfo[%u]:%llx - %llx > %u",
> +                         i, jited_linfo[i], cur_func_ksyms,
>                           cur_func_len)) {
>                         err = -1;
>                         goto done;
> --
> 2.25.1
>