All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Julian P Samaroo" <jpsamaroo@jpsamaroo.me>
To: <bpf@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: LLVM bug when storing unpacked struct?
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2021 11:57:02 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CBTAHNOALDNZ.3N7KFDP60ZTUH@ares> (raw)

This is my first LKML email, so let me know if I'm doing something wrong! :)

I believe I've found a bug in LLVM's generation of BPF bytecode, and would like
to get advice on whether this is truly a bug before considering writing a
patch.

When storing an unpacked struct such as { i64, i32 } to the stack (as part of
writing a struct-typed map key), LLVM 11.0.1 generates BPF bytecode like the
following:

...
2: (b7) r1 = 2
3: (63) *(u32 *)(r10 -24) = r1
4: (b7) r1 = 4
5: (7b) *(u64 *)(r10 -32) = r1
...
8: (bf) r3 = r10
9: (07) r3 += -32
...
13: (85) call bpf_map_update_elem#2
invalid indirect read from stack off -32+12 size 16

The verifier understandably complains about this when verifying a call that
uses these stack slots, such as bpf_map_update_elem, because the associated map
definition has a key size of 16 bytes, not 12 bytes as this bytecode would
suggest. In my particular case that generated this code, my frontend doesn't
have the notion of packed structs, so I can't workaround this by making the
struct packed.

My belief is that for unpacked structs, LLVM should emit these stores as 64-bit
stores, which should be OK since the padding bytes are going to be zero (from
my limited understanding of LLVM structs). Does this seem like a reasonable
change to make? I'm also unable to test this on LLVM 12 (my language hasn't yet
updated to support that version), so this could have possibly already been
fixed; please let me know if so!

Julian

             reply	other threads:[~2021-06-02 17:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-06-02 16:57 Julian P Samaroo [this message]
2021-06-02 17:19 ` LLVM bug when storing unpacked struct? Yonghong Song
2021-06-02 20:30   ` Julian P Samaroo

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CBTAHNOALDNZ.3N7KFDP60ZTUH@ares \
    --to=jpsamaroo@jpsamaroo.me \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.