Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.35 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.35;
Feedback-ID: i6a694271:Fastmail
Date:   Mon, 27 Nov 2023 18:01:03 -0600
From:   Daniel Xu <dxu@dxuuu.xyz>
To:     Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Cc:     Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>,
        antony.antony@secunet.com, Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@fb.com>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
        Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>,
        Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, devel@linux-ipsec.org,
        Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ipsec-next v1 6/7] bpf: selftests: test_tunnel: Disable
 CO-RE relocations
Message-ID: <53jaqi72ef4gynyafxidl5veb54kfs7dttxezkarwg75t7szd4@cvfg5pc7pyum>
References: <391d524c496acc97a8801d8bea80976f58485810.1700676682.git.dxu@dxuuu.xyz>
 <0f210cef-c6e9-41c1-9ba8-225f046435e5@linux.dev>
 <CAADnVQ+sEsUyNYPeZyOf2PcCnxOvOqw4bUuAuMofCU14szTGvg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3ec6c068-7f95-419a-a0ae-a901f95e4838@linux.dev>
 <18e43cdf65e7ba0d8f6912364fbc5b08a6928b35.camel@gmail.com>
 <uc5fv3keghefszuvono7aclgtjtgjnnia3i54ynejmyrs42ser@bwdpq5gmuvub>
 <0535eb913f1a0c2d3c291478fde07e0aa2b333f1.camel@gmail.com>
 <42f9bf0d-695a-412d-bea5-cb7036fa7418@linux.dev>
 <a5a84482-13ef-47d8-bf07-8017060a5d64@linux.dev>
 <xehp2qvy5cyaairbnfhem4hvbsl26blo4zzu7z6ywbp26jcwyn@hgp3v2q4ud7o>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <xehp2qvy5cyaairbnfhem4hvbsl26blo4zzu7z6ywbp26jcwyn@hgp3v2q4ud7o>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 02:45:11PM -0600, Daniel Xu wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 09:53:04PM -0800, Yonghong Song wrote:
> > 
> > On 11/27/23 12:44 AM, Yonghong Song wrote:
> > > 
> > > On 11/26/23 8:52 PM, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 2023-11-26 at 18:04 -0600, Daniel Xu wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > > > Tbh I'm not sure. This test passes with preserve_static_offset
> > > > > > because it suppresses preserve_access_index. In general clang
> > > > > > translates bitfield access to a set of IR statements like:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ?? C:
> > > > > > ???? struct foo {
> > > > > > ?????? unsigned _;
> > > > > > ?????? unsigned a:1;
> > > > > > ?????? ...
> > > > > > ???? };
> > > > > > ???? ... foo->a ...
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ?? IR:
> > > > > > ???? %a = getelementptr inbounds %struct.foo, ptr %0, i32 0, i32 1
> > > > > > ???? %bf.load = load i8, ptr %a, align 4
> > > > > > ???? %bf.clear = and i8 %bf.load, 1
> > > > > > ???? %bf.cast = zext i8 %bf.clear to i32
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > With preserve_static_offset the getelementptr+load are replaced by a
> > > > > > single statement which is preserved as-is till code generation,
> > > > > > thus load with align 4 is preserved.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On the other hand, I'm not sure that clang guarantees that load or
> > > > > > stores used for bitfield access would be always aligned according to
> > > > > > verifier expectations.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I think we should check if there are some clang knobs that prevent
> > > > > > generation of unaligned memory access. I'll take a look.
> > > > > Is there a reason to prefer fixing in compiler? I'm not opposed to it,
> > > > > but the downside to compiler fix is it takes years to propagate and
> > > > > sprinkles ifdefs into the code.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Would it be possible to have an analogue of BPF_CORE_READ_BITFIELD()?
> > > > Well, the contraption below passes verification, tunnel selftest
> > > > appears to work. I might have messed up some shifts in the macro,
> > > > though.
> > > 
> > > I didn't test it. But from high level it should work.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Still, if clang would peek unlucky BYTE_{OFFSET,SIZE} for a particular
> > > > field access might be unaligned.
> > > 
> > > clang should pick a sensible BYTE_SIZE/BYTE_OFFSET to meet
> > > alignment requirement. This is also required for BPF_CORE_READ_BITFIELD.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > ---
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_tunnel_kern.c
> > > > b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_tunnel_kern.c
> > > > index 3065a716544d..41cd913ac7ff 100644
> > > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_tunnel_kern.c
> > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_tunnel_kern.c
> > > > @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
> > > > ? #include "vmlinux.h"
> > > > ? #include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
> > > > ? #include <bpf/bpf_endian.h>
> > > > +#include <bpf/bpf_core_read.h>
> > > > ? #include "bpf_kfuncs.h"
> > > > ? #include "bpf_tracing_net.h"
> > > > ? @@ -144,6 +145,38 @@ int ip6gretap_get_tunnel(struct __sk_buff *skb)
> > > > ????? return TC_ACT_OK;
> > > > ? }
> > > > ? +#define BPF_CORE_WRITE_BITFIELD(s, field, new_val) ({??????????? \
> > > > +??? void *p = (void *)s + __CORE_RELO(s, field, BYTE_OFFSET);??? \
> > > > +??? unsigned byte_size = __CORE_RELO(s, field, BYTE_SIZE);??????? \
> > > > +??? unsigned lshift = __CORE_RELO(s, field, LSHIFT_U64); \
> > > > +??? unsigned rshift = __CORE_RELO(s, field, RSHIFT_U64); \
> > > > +??? unsigned bit_size = (rshift - lshift);??????????????? \
> > > > +??? unsigned long long nval, val, hi, lo;??????????????? \
> > > > +??????????????????????????????????? \
> > > > +??? asm volatile("" : "=r"(p) : "0"(p));??????????????? \
> > > 
> > > Use asm volatile("" : "+r"(p)) ?
> > > 
> > > > +??????????????????????????????????? \
> > > > +??? switch (byte_size) {??????????????????????? \
> > > > +??? case 1: val = *(unsigned char *)p; break;??????????? \
> > > > +??? case 2: val = *(unsigned short *)p; break;??????????? \
> > > > +??? case 4: val = *(unsigned int *)p; break;??????????? \
> > > > +??? case 8: val = *(unsigned long long *)p; break;??????????? \
> > > > +??? }??????????????????????????????? \
> > > > +??? hi = val >> (bit_size + rshift);??????????????? \
> > > > +??? hi <<= bit_size + rshift;??????????????????? \
> > > > +??? lo = val << (bit_size + lshift);??????????????? \
> > > > +??? lo >>= bit_size + lshift;??????????????????? \
> > > > +??? nval = new_val;??????????????????????????? \
> > > > +??? nval <<= lshift;??????????????????????? \
> > > > +??? nval >>= rshift;??????????????????????? \
> > > > +??? val = hi | nval | lo;??????????????????????? \
> > > > +??? switch (byte_size) {??????????????????????? \
> > > > +??? case 1: *(unsigned char *)p????? = val; break;??????????? \
> > > > +??? case 2: *(unsigned short *)p???? = val; break;??????????? \
> > > > +??? case 4: *(unsigned int *)p?????? = val; break;??????????? \
> > > > +??? case 8: *(unsigned long long *)p = val; break;??????????? \
> > > > +??? }??????????????????????????????? \
> > > > +})
> > > 
> > > I think this should be put in libbpf public header files but not sure
> > > where to put it. bpf_core_read.h although it is core write?
> > > 
> > > But on the other hand, this is a uapi struct bitfield write,
> > > strictly speaking, CORE write is really unnecessary here. It
> > > would be great if we can relieve users from dealing with
> > > such unnecessary CORE writes. In that sense, for this particular
> > > case, I would prefer rewriting the code by using byte-level
> > > stores...
> > or preserve_static_offset to clearly mean to undo bitfield CORE ...
> 
> Ok, I will do byte-level rewrite for next revision.

[...]

This patch seems to work: https://pastes.dxuuu.xyz/0glrf9 .

But I don't think it's very pretty. Also I'm seeing on the internet that
people are saying the exact layout of bitfields is compiler dependent.
So I am wondering if these byte sized writes are correct. For that
matter, I am wondering how the GCC generated bitfield accesses line up
with clang generated BPF bytecode. Or why uapi contains a bitfield.

WDYT, should I send up v2 with this or should I do one of the other
approaches in this thread?

I am ok with any of the approaches.

Thanks,
Daniel