Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 0/3] bpf: support module BTF in BTF display helpers

[Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 4:44 PM Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 5 Dec 2020, Yonghong Song wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > __builtin_btf_type_id() is really only supported in llvm12
> > and 64bit return value support is pushed to llvm12 trunk
> > a while back. The builtin is introduced in llvm11 but has a
> > corner bug, so llvm12 is recommended. So if people use the builtin,
> > you can assume 64bit return value. libbpf support is required
> > here. So in my opinion, there is no need to do feature detection.
> >
> > Andrii has a patch to support 64bit return value for
> > __builtin_btf_type_id() and I assume that one should
> > be landed before or together with your patch.
> >
> > Just for your info. The following is an example you could
> > use to determine whether __builtin_btf_type_id()
> > supports btf object id at llvm level.
> >
> > -bash-4.4$ cat t.c
> > int test(int arg) {
> >   return __builtin_btf_type_id(arg, 1);
> > }
> >
> > Compile to generate assembly code with latest llvm12 trunk:
> >   clang -target bpf -O2 -S -g -mcpu=v3 t.c
> > In the asm code, you should see one line with
> >   r0 = 1 ll
> >
> > Or you can generate obj code:
> >   clang -target bpf -O2 -c -g -mcpu=v3 t.c
> > and then you disassemble the obj file
> >   llvm-objdump -d --no-show-raw-insn --no-leading-addr t.o
> > You should see below in the output
> >   r0 = 1 ll
> >
> > Use earlier version of llvm12 trunk, the builtin has
> > 32bit return value, you will see
> >   r0 = 1
> > which is a 32bit imm to r0, while "r0 = 1 ll" is
> > 64bit imm to r0.
> >
>
> Thanks for this Yonghong!  I'm thinking the way I'll tackle it
> is to simply verify that the upper 32 bits specifying the
> veth module object id are non-zero; if they are zero, we'll skip

Let's instead of the real veth module use selftests's bpf_testmod,
which I added specifically to use for tests like these. We can define
whatever types we need in there.

> the test (I think a skip probably makes sense as not everyone will
> have llvm12). Does that seem reasonable?
>
> With the additional few minor changes on top of Andrii's patch,
> the use of __builtin_btf_type_id() worked perfectly. Thanks!
>
> Alan