Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-155838-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Message-ID: <a79006a7-a5af-4e30-8424-d54145bcd538@linux.dev>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 13:12:04 -0700
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libbpf: extending BTF_KIND_INIT to accommodate some
 unusual types
To: Xin Liu <liuxin350@huawei.com>, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net,
 andrii@kernel.org, martin.lau@linux.dev, song@kernel.org, yhs@fb.com,
 john.fastabend@gmail.com, kpsingh@kernel.org, sdf@google.com,
 haoluo@google.com, jolsa@kernel.org
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, yanan@huawei.com,
 wuchangye@huawei.com, xiesongyang@huawei.com, kongweibin2@huawei.com,
 zhangmingyi5@huawei.com, liwei883@huawei.com
References: <20240423131503.361149-1-liuxin350@huawei.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
From: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
In-Reply-To: <20240423131503.361149-1-liuxin350@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


On 4/23/24 6:15 AM, Xin Liu wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 10:43:38 -0700 Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 7:46 AM Xin Liu <liuxin350@huawei.com> wrote:
>>> In btf__add_int, the size of the new btf_kind_int type is limited.
>>> When the size is greater than 16, btf__add_int fails to be added
>>> and -EINVAL is returned. This is usually effective.
>>>
>>> However, when the built-in type __builtin_aarch64_simd_xi in the
>>> NEON instruction is used in the code in the arm64 system, the value
>>> of DW_AT_byte_size is 64. This causes btf__add_int to fail to
>>> properly add btf information to it.
>>>
>>> like this:
>>>    ...
>>>     <1><cf>: Abbrev Number: 2 (DW_TAG_base_type)
>>>      <d0>   DW_AT_byte_size   : 64              // over max size 16
>>>      <d1>   DW_AT_encoding    : 5        (signed)
>>>      <d2>   DW_AT_name        : (indirect string, offset: 0x53): __builtin_aarch64_simd_xi
>>>     <1><d6>: Abbrev Number: 0
>>>    ...
>>>
>>> An easier way to solve this problem is to treat it as a base type
>>> and set byte_size to 64. This patch is modified along these lines.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 4a3b33f8579a ("libbpf: Add BTF writing APIs")
>>> Signed-off-by: Xin Liu <liuxin350@huawei.com>
>>> ---
>>>   tools/lib/bpf/btf.c | 2 +-
>>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/btf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/btf.c
>>> index 2d0840ef599a..0af121293b65 100644
>>> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/btf.c
>>> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/btf.c
>>> @@ -1934,7 +1934,7 @@ int btf__add_int(struct btf *btf, const char *name, size_t byte_sz, int encoding
>>>          if (!name || !name[0])
>>>                  return libbpf_err(-EINVAL);
>>>          /* byte_sz must be power of 2 */
>>> -       if (!byte_sz || (byte_sz & (byte_sz - 1)) || byte_sz > 16)
>>> +       if (!byte_sz || (byte_sz & (byte_sz - 1)) || byte_sz > 64)
>>
>> maybe we should just remove byte_sz upper limit? We can probably
>> imagine 256-byte integers at some point, so why bother artificially
>> restricting it?
>>
>> pw-bot: cr
> In the current definition of btf_kind_int, bits has only 8 bits, followed
> by 8 bits of unused interval. When we expand, we should only use 16 bits
> at most, so the maximum value should be 8192(1 << 16 / 8), directly removing
> the limit of byte_sz. It may not fit the current design. For INT type btfs
> greater than 255, how to dump is still a challenge.

Looking at this patch. Now I remember that I have an old pahole patch
to address similar issues
   https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20230426055030.3743074-1-yhs@fb.com/
which is not merged and I forgot that.

In that particular case, the int size is 1024 bytes.
Currently the int type more than 16 bytes cannot be dumped in libbpf.
Do you have a particular use case to use your__builtin_aarch64_simd_xi() type
in bpf program? I guess probably not as BPF does not support
builtin function your__builtin_aarch64_simd_xi().

>
> Does the current version support a maximum of 8192 bytes?
>
>>>                  return libbpf_err(-EINVAL);
>>>          if (encoding & ~(BTF_INT_SIGNED | BTF_INT_CHAR | BTF_INT_BOOL))
>>>                  return libbpf_err(-EINVAL);
>>> --
>>> 2.33.0
>>>