Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-17376-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Feedback-ID: i6a694271:Fastmail
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2024 18:17:50 -0700
From: Daniel Xu <dxu@dxuuu.xyz>
To: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com>
Cc: benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com, hawk@kernel.org, edumazet@google.com,
 	alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com, ebiggers@kernel.org, tj@kernel.org,
 rostedt@goodmis.org, 	shuah@kernel.org, martin.lau@linux.dev,
 ast@kernel.org, fw@strlen.de, 	kuba@kernel.org, pablo@netfilter.org,
 jikos@kernel.org, john.fastabend@gmail.com, 	mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com,
 mhiramat@kernel.org, yonghong.song@linux.dev,
 	Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>, dsahern@kernel.org,
 hannes@cmpxchg.org, lizefan.x@bytedance.com, 	pabeni@redhat.com,
 steffen.klassert@secunet.com, daniel@iogearbox.net, 	tytso@mit.edu,
 andrii@kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, kadlec@netfilter.org,
 	song@kernel.org, alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com, quentin@isovalent.com,
 	alan.maguire@oracle.com, memxor@gmail.com, kpsingh@kernel.org,
 sdf@google.com, 	haoluo@google.com, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
 mykolal@fb.com, 	linux-input@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, fsverity@lists.linux.dev,
 	bpf@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 	netdev@vger.kernel.org,
 netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, coreteam@netfilter.org,
 	linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com,
 	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] bpf: treewide: Annotate BPF kfuncs in BTF
Message-ID: <bix2uwya2mnk2vgno3vkdpg5kyusq763bmfj2ov6zwpbva6q4h@nqgm3vk4byh5>
References: <cover.1704324602.git.dxu@dxuuu.xyz>
 <68d5598e5708dfe3370406cd5c946565ca4b50f1.1704324602.git.dxu@dxuuu.xyz>
 <ZZaZf_8RuX2xqZGf@krava>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZZaZf_8RuX2xqZGf@krava>

Hi Jiri, 

On Thu, Jan 04, 2024 at 12:41:51PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 04:31:56PM -0700, Daniel Xu wrote:
> 
> SNIP
> 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/btf_ids.h b/include/linux/btf_ids.h
> > index 88f914579fa1..771e29762a2d 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/btf_ids.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/btf_ids.h
> > @@ -8,6 +8,9 @@ struct btf_id_set {
> >  	u32 ids[];
> >  };
> >  
> > +/* This flag implies BTF_SET8 holds kfunc(s) */
> > +#define BTF_SET8_KFUNC		(1 << 0)
> > +
> >  struct btf_id_set8 {
> >  	u32 cnt;
> >  	u32 flags;
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/btf.c b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> > index 51e8b4bee0c8..b8ba00a4179f 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> > @@ -7769,6 +7769,9 @@ static int __register_btf_kfunc_id_set(enum btf_kfunc_hook hook,
> >  	struct btf *btf;
> >  	int ret, i;
> >  
> > +	/* All kfuncs need to be tagged as such in BTF */
> > +	WARN_ON(!(kset->set->flags & BTF_SET8_KFUNC));
> 
> __register_btf_kfunc_id_set gets called also from the 'hooks' path:
> 
>   bpf_mptcp_kfunc_init
>     register_btf_fmodret_id_set
>       __register_btf_kfunc_id_set
> 
> so it will hit the warn.. it should be probably in the register_btf_kfunc_id_set ?

Yeah, good catch.

> 
> also given that we can have modules calling register_btf_kfunc_id_set,
> should we just return error instead of the warn?

It looks like quite a few registrations go through late_initcall(),
in which error codes are thrown away. I'm looking at
init/main.c:do_initcall_level:

        for (fn = initcall_levels[level]; fn < initcall_levels[level+1]; fn++)
                do_one_initcall(initcall_from_entry(fn));

Higher level question: if out of tree module does not follow convention,
it would still make sense to WARN(), right?

> 
> SNIP
> 
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
> > index 91907b321f91..32972334cd50 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
> > @@ -341,7 +341,7 @@ static struct bin_attribute bin_attr_bpf_testmod_file __ro_after_init = {
> >  	.write = bpf_testmod_test_write,
> >  };
> >  
> > -BTF_SET8_START(bpf_testmod_common_kfunc_ids)
> > +BTF_SET8_START(bpf_testmod_common_kfunc_ids, BTF_SET8_KFUNC)
> >  BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_testmod_seq_new, KF_ITER_NEW)
> >  BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_testmod_seq_next, KF_ITER_NEXT | KF_RET_NULL)
> >  BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_testmod_seq_destroy, KF_ITER_DESTROY)
> 
> we need to change also bpf_testmod_check_kfunc_ids set

Good catch, thanks.

Daniel