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: <20230530044423.3897681-1-imagedong@tencent.com>
 <ZHb+ypjE4Ybg3O18@krava> <CADxym3biE8WcMxWf1wok+s4pBYEi6+fYQAbZJVxm7eBfzWLjLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <34fb3a9841bf4977413be799f7cbef78560aaa20.camel@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <34fb3a9841bf4977413be799f7cbef78560aaa20.camel@gmail.com>
From:   Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 31 May 2023 21:10:51 +0800
Message-ID: <CADxym3YuGnoPpxUx92ZZqhi4z8t-hHQaKfah=9k6L-YiTg+Jjw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf, x86: allow function arguments up to 12 for TRACING
To:     Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Cc:     Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com>, dsahern@kernel.org,
        andrii@kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, ast@kernel.org,
        daniel@iogearbox.net, martin.lau@linux.dev, song@kernel.org,
        yhs@fb.com, john.fastabend@gmail.com, kpsingh@kernel.org,
        sdf@google.com, haoluo@google.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
        mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
        x86@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Menglong Dong <imagedong@tencent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 8:02=E2=80=AFPM Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com=
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2023-05-31 at 17:03 +0800, Menglong Dong wrote:
> > On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 4:01=E2=80=AFPM Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com> =
wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 12:44:23PM +0800, menglong8.dong@gmail.com wr=
ote:
> > > > From: Menglong Dong <imagedong@tencent.com>
> > > >
> > > > For now, the BPF program of type BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING can only be =
used
> > > > on the kernel functions whose arguments count less than 6. This is =
not
> > > > friendly at all, as too many functions have arguments count more th=
an 6.
> > > >
> > > > Therefore, let's enhance it by increasing the function arguments co=
unt
> > > > allowed in arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline(), for now, only x86_64.
> > > >
> > > > For the case that we don't need to call origin function, which mean=
s
> > > > without BPF_TRAMP_F_CALL_ORIG, we need only copy the function argum=
ents
> > > > that stored in the frame of the caller to current frame. The argume=
nts
> > > > of arg6-argN are stored in "$rbp + 0x18", we need copy them to
> > > > "$rbp - regs_off + (6 * 8)".
> > > >
> > > > For the case with BPF_TRAMP_F_CALL_ORIG, we need prepare the argume=
nts
> > > > in stack before call origin function, which means we need alloc ext=
ra
> > > > "8 * (arg_count - 6)" memory in the top of the stack. Note, there s=
hould
> > > > not be any data be pushed to the stack before call the origin funct=
ion.
> > > > Then, we have to store rbx with 'mov' instead of 'push'.
> > > >
> > > > It works well for the FENTRY and FEXIT, I'm not sure if there are o=
ther
> > > > complicated cases.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong <imagedong@tencent.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 88 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-=
----
> > >
> > > please add selftests for this.. I had to add one to be able to check
> > > the generated trampoline
> > >
> >
> > Okay!
> >
> > BTW, I failed to compile the latest selftests/bpf with
> > the following errors:
> >
> > progs/verifier_and.c:58:16: error: invalid operand for instruction
> >         asm volatile ("                                 \
> >
>
> These tests were moved to use inline assembly recently (2 month ago).
> Discussion at the time was whether to use \n\ or \ terminators at the
> end of each line. People opted for \ as easier to read.
> Replacing \ with \n\ and compiling this test using clang 14 shows
> more informative error message:
>
> $ make -j14 `pwd`/verifier_and.bpf.o
>   CLNG-BPF [test_maps] verifier_and.bpf.o
> progs/verifier_and.c:68:1: error: invalid operand for instruction
>         w1 %%=3D 2;                                       \n\
> ^
> <inline asm>:11:5: note: instantiated into assembly here
>         w1 %=3D 2;
>
> My guess is that clang 14 does not know how to handle operations on
> 32-bit sub-registers w[0-9].
>
> But using clang 14 I get some errors not related to inline assembly as we=
ll.
> Also, I recall that there were runtime issues with clang 14 and
> tests using enum64.
>
> All-in-all, you need newer version of clang for tests nowadays,
> sorry for inconvenience.

Thanks for your explanation! It works well after I
update my clang to a newer version.

Menglong Dong
>
> > The version of clang I used is:
> >
> > clang --version
> > Debian clang version 14.0.6
> > Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
> > Thread model: posix
> > InstalledDir: /usr/bin
> >
> > Does anyone know the reason?
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Menglong Dong
> >
> > > jirka
> > >
> > >
> >
>