Re: [PATCH bpf 1/1] bpf: btf: Fix bitfield extraction for big endian

[Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>]

On 07/10/2018 07:49 PM, Okash Khawaja wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:21:02AM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> On 07/09/2018 08:32 PM, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jul 08, 2018 at 05:22:03PM -0700, Okash Khawaja wrote:
>>>> When extracting bitfield from a number, btf_int_bits_seq_show() builds
>>>> a mask and accesses least significant byte of the number in a way
>>>> specific to little-endian. This patch fixes that by checking endianness
>>>> of the machine and then shifting left and right the unneeded bits.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks to Martin Lau for the help in navigating potential pitfalls when
>>>> dealing with endianess and for the final solution.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: b00b8daec828 ("bpf: btf: Add pretty print capability for data with BTF type info")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Okash Khawaja <osk@fb.com>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>  kernel/bpf/btf.c |   32 +++++++++++++++-----------------
>>>>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> --- a/kernel/bpf/btf.c
>>>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
>>>> @@ -162,6 +162,8 @@
>>>>  #define BITS_ROUNDDOWN_BYTES(bits) ((bits) >> 3)
>>>>  #define BITS_ROUNDUP_BYTES(bits) \
>>>>  	(BITS_ROUNDDOWN_BYTES(bits) + !!BITS_PER_BYTE_MASKED(bits))
>>>> +const int one = 1;
>>>> +#define is_big_endian() ((*(char *)&one) == 0)
>>
>> Also here, in the kernel archs provide proper definitions.
> Is this the __BIG_ENDIAN #define or are there better ways to check that?

Given this deals with bitfields, should be __{BIG,LITTLE}_ENDIAN_BITFIELD.