All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH bpf-next v3 0/3] bpf, arm64: enable kfunc call
@ 2022-01-30  9:29 ` Hou Tao
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Hou Tao @ 2022-01-30  9:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Daniel Borkmann
  Cc: Alexei Starovoitov, Martin KaFai Lau, Yonghong Song,
	Andrii Nakryiko, David S . Miller, Jakub Kicinski,
	John Fastabend, netdev, bpf, houtao1, Zi Shen Lim,
	Catalin Marinas, Will Deacon, Ard Biesheuvel, linux-arm-kernel,
	Hou Tao

Hi,

The simple patchset tries to enable kfunc call for arm64. Patch #1 just
overrides bpf_jit_supports_kfunc_call() to enable kfunc call, patch #2
unexports the subtests in ksyms_module.c to fix the confusion in test
output and patch #3 add a test in ksyms_module.c to ensure s32 is
sufficient for kfunc offset.

Change Log:
v3:
  * patch #2: newly-addded to unexport unnecessary subtests
  * patch #3: use kallsyms_find() instead of reimplementing it.
  * patch #3: ensure kfunc call is supported before checking
              whether s32 will be overflowed or not.

v2: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220127071532.384888-1-houtao1@huawei.com/
  * add a test to check whether imm will be overflowed for kfunc call

v1: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220119144942.305568-1-houtao1@huawei.com

Hou Tao (3):
  bpf, arm64: enable kfunc call
  selftests/bpf: do not export subtest as standalone test
  selftests/bpf: check whether s32 is sufficient for kfunc offset

 arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c                 |  5 ++
 .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ksyms_module.c   | 46 ++++++++++++++++++-
 .../bpf/prog_tests/xdp_adjust_frags.c         |  6 ---
 .../bpf/prog_tests/xdp_adjust_tail.c          |  4 +-
 .../bpf/prog_tests/xdp_cpumap_attach.c        |  4 +-
 .../bpf/prog_tests/xdp_devmap_attach.c        |  2 +-
 6 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

-- 
2.20.1


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [PATCH bpf-next v3 0/3] bpf, arm64: enable kfunc call
@ 2022-01-30  9:29 ` Hou Tao
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Hou Tao @ 2022-01-30  9:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Daniel Borkmann
  Cc: Alexei Starovoitov, Martin KaFai Lau, Yonghong Song,
	Andrii Nakryiko, David S . Miller, Jakub Kicinski,
	John Fastabend, netdev, bpf, houtao1, Zi Shen Lim,
	Catalin Marinas, Will Deacon, Ard Biesheuvel, linux-arm-kernel,
	Hou Tao

Hi,

The simple patchset tries to enable kfunc call for arm64. Patch #1 just
overrides bpf_jit_supports_kfunc_call() to enable kfunc call, patch #2
unexports the subtests in ksyms_module.c to fix the confusion in test
output and patch #3 add a test in ksyms_module.c to ensure s32 is
sufficient for kfunc offset.

Change Log:
v3:
  * patch #2: newly-addded to unexport unnecessary subtests
  * patch #3: use kallsyms_find() instead of reimplementing it.
  * patch #3: ensure kfunc call is supported before checking
              whether s32 will be overflowed or not.

v2: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220127071532.384888-1-houtao1@huawei.com/
  * add a test to check whether imm will be overflowed for kfunc call

v1: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220119144942.305568-1-houtao1@huawei.com

Hou Tao (3):
  bpf, arm64: enable kfunc call
  selftests/bpf: do not export subtest as standalone test
  selftests/bpf: check whether s32 is sufficient for kfunc offset

 arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c                 |  5 ++
 .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ksyms_module.c   | 46 ++++++++++++++++++-
 .../bpf/prog_tests/xdp_adjust_frags.c         |  6 ---
 .../bpf/prog_tests/xdp_adjust_tail.c          |  4 +-
 .../bpf/prog_tests/xdp_cpumap_attach.c        |  4 +-
 .../bpf/prog_tests/xdp_devmap_attach.c        |  2 +-
 6 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

-- 
2.20.1


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/3] bpf, arm64: enable kfunc call
  2022-01-30  9:29 ` Hou Tao
@ 2022-01-30  9:29   ` Hou Tao
  -1 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Hou Tao @ 2022-01-30  9:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Daniel Borkmann
  Cc: Alexei Starovoitov, Martin KaFai Lau, Yonghong Song,
	Andrii Nakryiko, David S . Miller, Jakub Kicinski,
	John Fastabend, netdev, bpf, houtao1, Zi Shen Lim,
	Catalin Marinas, Will Deacon, Ard Biesheuvel, linux-arm-kernel

From: Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com>

Since commit b2eed9b58811 ("arm64/kernel: kaslr: reduce module
randomization range to 2 GB"), for arm64 whether KASLR is enabled
or not, the module is placed within 2GB of the kernel region, so
s32 in bpf_kfunc_desc is sufficient to represente the offset of
module function relative to __bpf_call_base. The only thing needed
is to override bpf_jit_supports_kfunc_call().

Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com>
---
 arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 5 +++++
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
index e96d4d87291f..74f9a9b6a053 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
@@ -1143,6 +1143,11 @@ struct bpf_prog *bpf_int_jit_compile(struct bpf_prog *prog)
 	return prog;
 }
 
+bool bpf_jit_supports_kfunc_call(void)
+{
+	return true;
+}
+
 u64 bpf_jit_alloc_exec_limit(void)
 {
 	return VMALLOC_END - VMALLOC_START;
-- 
2.20.1


^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/3] bpf, arm64: enable kfunc call
@ 2022-01-30  9:29   ` Hou Tao
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Hou Tao @ 2022-01-30  9:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Daniel Borkmann
  Cc: Alexei Starovoitov, Martin KaFai Lau, Yonghong Song,
	Andrii Nakryiko, David S . Miller, Jakub Kicinski,
	John Fastabend, netdev, bpf, houtao1, Zi Shen Lim,
	Catalin Marinas, Will Deacon, Ard Biesheuvel, linux-arm-kernel

From: Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com>

Since commit b2eed9b58811 ("arm64/kernel: kaslr: reduce module
randomization range to 2 GB"), for arm64 whether KASLR is enabled
or not, the module is placed within 2GB of the kernel region, so
s32 in bpf_kfunc_desc is sufficient to represente the offset of
module function relative to __bpf_call_base. The only thing needed
is to override bpf_jit_supports_kfunc_call().

Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com>
---
 arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 5 +++++
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
index e96d4d87291f..74f9a9b6a053 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
@@ -1143,6 +1143,11 @@ struct bpf_prog *bpf_int_jit_compile(struct bpf_prog *prog)
 	return prog;
 }
 
+bool bpf_jit_supports_kfunc_call(void)
+{
+	return true;
+}
+
 u64 bpf_jit_alloc_exec_limit(void)
 {
 	return VMALLOC_END - VMALLOC_START;
-- 
2.20.1


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [PATCH bpf-next v3 2/3] selftests/bpf: do not export subtest as standalone test
  2022-01-30  9:29 ` Hou Tao
@ 2022-01-30  9:29   ` Hou Tao
  -1 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Hou Tao @ 2022-01-30  9:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Daniel Borkmann
  Cc: Alexei Starovoitov, Martin KaFai Lau, Yonghong Song,
	Andrii Nakryiko, David S . Miller, Jakub Kicinski,
	John Fastabend, netdev, bpf, houtao1, Zi Shen Lim,
	Catalin Marinas, Will Deacon, Ard Biesheuvel, linux-arm-kernel,
	Hou Tao

Two subtests in ksyms_module.c are not qualified as static, so these
subtests are exported as standalone tests in tests.h and lead to
confusion for the output of "./test_progs -t ksyms_module".

By using the following command:

  grep "^void \(serial_\)\?test_[a-zA-Z0-9_]\+(\(void\)\?)" \
      tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/*.c | \
	awk -F : '{print $1}' | sort | uniq -c | awk '$1 != 1'

Find out that other tests also have the similar problem, so fix
these tests by marking subtests in these tests as static. For
xdp_adjust_frags.c, there is just one subtest, so just export
the subtest directly.

Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <hotforest@gmail.com>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ksyms_module.c      | 4 ++--
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_adjust_frags.c  | 6 ------
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_adjust_tail.c   | 4 ++--
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_cpumap_attach.c | 4 ++--
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_devmap_attach.c | 2 +-
 5 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ksyms_module.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ksyms_module.c
index d490ad80eccb..997aa90dea64 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ksyms_module.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ksyms_module.c
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
 #include "test_ksyms_module.lskel.h"
 #include "test_ksyms_module.skel.h"
 
-void test_ksyms_module_lskel(void)
+static void test_ksyms_module_lskel(void)
 {
 	struct test_ksyms_module_lskel *skel;
 	int retval;
@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ void test_ksyms_module_lskel(void)
 	test_ksyms_module_lskel__destroy(skel);
 }
 
-void test_ksyms_module_libbpf(void)
+static void test_ksyms_module_libbpf(void)
 {
 	struct test_ksyms_module *skel;
 	int retval, err;
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_adjust_frags.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_adjust_frags.c
index 31c188666e81..6ca3582bb056 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_adjust_frags.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_adjust_frags.c
@@ -96,9 +96,3 @@ void test_xdp_update_frags(void)
 out:
 	bpf_object__close(obj);
 }
-
-void test_xdp_adjust_frags(void)
-{
-	if (test__start_subtest("xdp_adjust_frags"))
-		test_xdp_update_frags();
-}
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_adjust_tail.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_adjust_tail.c
index ccc9e63254a8..a254c54c3ada 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_adjust_tail.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_adjust_tail.c
@@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ static void test_xdp_adjust_tail_grow2(void)
 	bpf_object__close(obj);
 }
 
-void test_xdp_adjust_frags_tail_shrink(void)
+static void test_xdp_adjust_frags_tail_shrink(void)
 {
 	const char *file = "./test_xdp_adjust_tail_shrink.o";
 	__u32 duration, retval, size, exp_size;
@@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ void test_xdp_adjust_frags_tail_shrink(void)
 	bpf_object__close(obj);
 }
 
-void test_xdp_adjust_frags_tail_grow(void)
+static void test_xdp_adjust_frags_tail_grow(void)
 {
 	const char *file = "./test_xdp_adjust_tail_grow.o";
 	__u32 duration, retval, size, exp_size;
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_cpumap_attach.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_cpumap_attach.c
index 13aabb3b6cf2..15e48098c8b8 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_cpumap_attach.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_cpumap_attach.c
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
 
 #define IFINDEX_LO	1
 
-void test_xdp_with_cpumap_helpers(void)
+static void test_xdp_with_cpumap_helpers(void)
 {
 	struct test_xdp_with_cpumap_helpers *skel;
 	struct bpf_prog_info info = {};
@@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ void test_xdp_with_cpumap_helpers(void)
 	test_xdp_with_cpumap_helpers__destroy(skel);
 }
 
-void test_xdp_with_cpumap_frags_helpers(void)
+static void test_xdp_with_cpumap_frags_helpers(void)
 {
 	struct test_xdp_with_cpumap_frags_helpers *skel;
 	struct bpf_prog_info info = {};
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_devmap_attach.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_devmap_attach.c
index 2a784ccd3136..08d074ec471d 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_devmap_attach.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_devmap_attach.c
@@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ static void test_neg_xdp_devmap_helpers(void)
 	}
 }
 
-void test_xdp_with_devmap_frags_helpers(void)
+static void test_xdp_with_devmap_frags_helpers(void)
 {
 	struct test_xdp_with_devmap_frags_helpers *skel;
 	struct bpf_prog_info info = {};
-- 
2.20.1


^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [PATCH bpf-next v3 2/3] selftests/bpf: do not export subtest as standalone test
@ 2022-01-30  9:29   ` Hou Tao
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Hou Tao @ 2022-01-30  9:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Daniel Borkmann
  Cc: Alexei Starovoitov, Martin KaFai Lau, Yonghong Song,
	Andrii Nakryiko, David S . Miller, Jakub Kicinski,
	John Fastabend, netdev, bpf, houtao1, Zi Shen Lim,
	Catalin Marinas, Will Deacon, Ard Biesheuvel, linux-arm-kernel,
	Hou Tao

Two subtests in ksyms_module.c are not qualified as static, so these
subtests are exported as standalone tests in tests.h and lead to
confusion for the output of "./test_progs -t ksyms_module".

By using the following command:

  grep "^void \(serial_\)\?test_[a-zA-Z0-9_]\+(\(void\)\?)" \
      tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/*.c | \
	awk -F : '{print $1}' | sort | uniq -c | awk '$1 != 1'

Find out that other tests also have the similar problem, so fix
these tests by marking subtests in these tests as static. For
xdp_adjust_frags.c, there is just one subtest, so just export
the subtest directly.

Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <hotforest@gmail.com>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ksyms_module.c      | 4 ++--
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_adjust_frags.c  | 6 ------
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_adjust_tail.c   | 4 ++--
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_cpumap_attach.c | 4 ++--
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_devmap_attach.c | 2 +-
 5 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ksyms_module.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ksyms_module.c
index d490ad80eccb..997aa90dea64 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ksyms_module.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ksyms_module.c
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
 #include "test_ksyms_module.lskel.h"
 #include "test_ksyms_module.skel.h"
 
-void test_ksyms_module_lskel(void)
+static void test_ksyms_module_lskel(void)
 {
 	struct test_ksyms_module_lskel *skel;
 	int retval;
@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ void test_ksyms_module_lskel(void)
 	test_ksyms_module_lskel__destroy(skel);
 }
 
-void test_ksyms_module_libbpf(void)
+static void test_ksyms_module_libbpf(void)
 {
 	struct test_ksyms_module *skel;
 	int retval, err;
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_adjust_frags.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_adjust_frags.c
index 31c188666e81..6ca3582bb056 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_adjust_frags.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_adjust_frags.c
@@ -96,9 +96,3 @@ void test_xdp_update_frags(void)
 out:
 	bpf_object__close(obj);
 }
-
-void test_xdp_adjust_frags(void)
-{
-	if (test__start_subtest("xdp_adjust_frags"))
-		test_xdp_update_frags();
-}
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_adjust_tail.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_adjust_tail.c
index ccc9e63254a8..a254c54c3ada 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_adjust_tail.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_adjust_tail.c
@@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ static void test_xdp_adjust_tail_grow2(void)
 	bpf_object__close(obj);
 }
 
-void test_xdp_adjust_frags_tail_shrink(void)
+static void test_xdp_adjust_frags_tail_shrink(void)
 {
 	const char *file = "./test_xdp_adjust_tail_shrink.o";
 	__u32 duration, retval, size, exp_size;
@@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ void test_xdp_adjust_frags_tail_shrink(void)
 	bpf_object__close(obj);
 }
 
-void test_xdp_adjust_frags_tail_grow(void)
+static void test_xdp_adjust_frags_tail_grow(void)
 {
 	const char *file = "./test_xdp_adjust_tail_grow.o";
 	__u32 duration, retval, size, exp_size;
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_cpumap_attach.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_cpumap_attach.c
index 13aabb3b6cf2..15e48098c8b8 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_cpumap_attach.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_cpumap_attach.c
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
 
 #define IFINDEX_LO	1
 
-void test_xdp_with_cpumap_helpers(void)
+static void test_xdp_with_cpumap_helpers(void)
 {
 	struct test_xdp_with_cpumap_helpers *skel;
 	struct bpf_prog_info info = {};
@@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ void test_xdp_with_cpumap_helpers(void)
 	test_xdp_with_cpumap_helpers__destroy(skel);
 }
 
-void test_xdp_with_cpumap_frags_helpers(void)
+static void test_xdp_with_cpumap_frags_helpers(void)
 {
 	struct test_xdp_with_cpumap_frags_helpers *skel;
 	struct bpf_prog_info info = {};
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_devmap_attach.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_devmap_attach.c
index 2a784ccd3136..08d074ec471d 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_devmap_attach.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_devmap_attach.c
@@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ static void test_neg_xdp_devmap_helpers(void)
 	}
 }
 
-void test_xdp_with_devmap_frags_helpers(void)
+static void test_xdp_with_devmap_frags_helpers(void)
 {
 	struct test_xdp_with_devmap_frags_helpers *skel;
 	struct bpf_prog_info info = {};
-- 
2.20.1


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [PATCH bpf-next v3 3/3] selftests/bpf: check whether s32 is sufficient for kfunc offset
  2022-01-30  9:29 ` Hou Tao
@ 2022-01-30  9:29   ` Hou Tao
  -1 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Hou Tao @ 2022-01-30  9:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Daniel Borkmann
  Cc: Alexei Starovoitov, Martin KaFai Lau, Yonghong Song,
	Andrii Nakryiko, David S . Miller, Jakub Kicinski,
	John Fastabend, netdev, bpf, houtao1, Zi Shen Lim,
	Catalin Marinas, Will Deacon, Ard Biesheuvel, linux-arm-kernel

From: Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com>

In add_kfunc_call(), bpf_kfunc_desc->imm with type s32 is used to
represent the offset of called kfunc from __bpf_call_base, so
add a test to ensure that the offset will not be overflowed.

Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com>
---
 .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ksyms_module.c   | 42 +++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ksyms_module.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ksyms_module.c
index 997aa90dea64..955a9ede4756 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ksyms_module.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ksyms_module.c
@@ -3,9 +3,49 @@
 
 #include <test_progs.h>
 #include <network_helpers.h>
+#include <trace_helpers.h>
 #include "test_ksyms_module.lskel.h"
 #include "test_ksyms_module.skel.h"
 
+/*
+ * Check whether or not s32 in bpf_kfunc_desc is sufficient
+ * to represent the offset between bpf_testmod_test_mod_kfunc
+ * and __bpf_call_base.
+ */
+static void test_ksyms_module_valid_offset(void)
+{
+	struct test_ksyms_module *skel;
+	unsigned long long kfunc_addr;
+	unsigned long long base_addr;
+	long long actual_offset;
+	int used_offset;
+	int err;
+
+	if (!env.has_testmod) {
+		test__skip();
+		return;
+	}
+
+	/* Ensure kfunc call is supported */
+	skel = test_ksyms_module__open_and_load();
+	if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "test_ksyms_module__open"))
+		return;
+
+	err = kallsyms_find("bpf_testmod_test_mod_kfunc", &kfunc_addr);
+	if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "find kfunc addr"))
+		goto cleanup;
+
+	err = kallsyms_find("__bpf_call_base", &base_addr);
+	if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "find base addr"))
+		goto cleanup;
+
+	used_offset = kfunc_addr - base_addr;
+	actual_offset = kfunc_addr - base_addr;
+	ASSERT_EQ((long long)used_offset, actual_offset, "kfunc offset overflowed");
+cleanup:
+	test_ksyms_module__destroy(skel);
+}
+
 static void test_ksyms_module_lskel(void)
 {
 	struct test_ksyms_module_lskel *skel;
@@ -55,6 +95,8 @@ static void test_ksyms_module_libbpf(void)
 
 void test_ksyms_module(void)
 {
+	if (test__start_subtest("valid_offset"))
+		test_ksyms_module_valid_offset();
 	if (test__start_subtest("lskel"))
 		test_ksyms_module_lskel();
 	if (test__start_subtest("libbpf"))
-- 
2.20.1


^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [PATCH bpf-next v3 3/3] selftests/bpf: check whether s32 is sufficient for kfunc offset
@ 2022-01-30  9:29   ` Hou Tao
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Hou Tao @ 2022-01-30  9:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Daniel Borkmann
  Cc: Alexei Starovoitov, Martin KaFai Lau, Yonghong Song,
	Andrii Nakryiko, David S . Miller, Jakub Kicinski,
	John Fastabend, netdev, bpf, houtao1, Zi Shen Lim,
	Catalin Marinas, Will Deacon, Ard Biesheuvel, linux-arm-kernel

From: Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com>

In add_kfunc_call(), bpf_kfunc_desc->imm with type s32 is used to
represent the offset of called kfunc from __bpf_call_base, so
add a test to ensure that the offset will not be overflowed.

Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com>
---
 .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ksyms_module.c   | 42 +++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ksyms_module.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ksyms_module.c
index 997aa90dea64..955a9ede4756 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ksyms_module.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ksyms_module.c
@@ -3,9 +3,49 @@
 
 #include <test_progs.h>
 #include <network_helpers.h>
+#include <trace_helpers.h>
 #include "test_ksyms_module.lskel.h"
 #include "test_ksyms_module.skel.h"
 
+/*
+ * Check whether or not s32 in bpf_kfunc_desc is sufficient
+ * to represent the offset between bpf_testmod_test_mod_kfunc
+ * and __bpf_call_base.
+ */
+static void test_ksyms_module_valid_offset(void)
+{
+	struct test_ksyms_module *skel;
+	unsigned long long kfunc_addr;
+	unsigned long long base_addr;
+	long long actual_offset;
+	int used_offset;
+	int err;
+
+	if (!env.has_testmod) {
+		test__skip();
+		return;
+	}
+
+	/* Ensure kfunc call is supported */
+	skel = test_ksyms_module__open_and_load();
+	if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "test_ksyms_module__open"))
+		return;
+
+	err = kallsyms_find("bpf_testmod_test_mod_kfunc", &kfunc_addr);
+	if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "find kfunc addr"))
+		goto cleanup;
+
+	err = kallsyms_find("__bpf_call_base", &base_addr);
+	if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "find base addr"))
+		goto cleanup;
+
+	used_offset = kfunc_addr - base_addr;
+	actual_offset = kfunc_addr - base_addr;
+	ASSERT_EQ((long long)used_offset, actual_offset, "kfunc offset overflowed");
+cleanup:
+	test_ksyms_module__destroy(skel);
+}
+
 static void test_ksyms_module_lskel(void)
 {
 	struct test_ksyms_module_lskel *skel;
@@ -55,6 +95,8 @@ static void test_ksyms_module_libbpf(void)
 
 void test_ksyms_module(void)
 {
+	if (test__start_subtest("valid_offset"))
+		test_ksyms_module_valid_offset();
 	if (test__start_subtest("lskel"))
 		test_ksyms_module_lskel();
 	if (test__start_subtest("libbpf"))
-- 
2.20.1


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 0/3] bpf, arm64: enable kfunc call
  2022-01-30  9:29 ` Hou Tao
@ 2022-02-04 15:40   ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
  -1 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: patchwork-bot+netdevbpf @ 2022-02-04 15:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Hou Tao
  Cc: daniel, ast, kafai, yhs, andrii, davem, kuba, john.fastabend,
	netdev, bpf, houtao1, zlim.lnx, catalin.marinas, will,
	ard.biesheuvel, linux-arm-kernel

Hello:

This series was applied to bpf/bpf-next.git (master)
by Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>:

On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 17:29:14 +0800 you wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> The simple patchset tries to enable kfunc call for arm64. Patch #1 just
> overrides bpf_jit_supports_kfunc_call() to enable kfunc call, patch #2
> unexports the subtests in ksyms_module.c to fix the confusion in test
> output and patch #3 add a test in ksyms_module.c to ensure s32 is
> sufficient for kfunc offset.
> 
> [...]

Here is the summary with links:
  - [bpf-next,v3,1/3] bpf, arm64: enable kfunc call
    https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf-next/c/b5e975d256db
  - [bpf-next,v3,2/3] selftests/bpf: do not export subtest as standalone test
    (no matching commit)
  - [bpf-next,v3,3/3] selftests/bpf: check whether s32 is sufficient for kfunc offset
    (no matching commit)

You are awesome, thank you!
-- 
Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot.
https://korg.docs.kernel.org/patchwork/pwbot.html



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 0/3] bpf, arm64: enable kfunc call
@ 2022-02-04 15:40   ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: patchwork-bot+netdevbpf @ 2022-02-04 15:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Hou Tao
  Cc: daniel, ast, kafai, yhs, andrii, davem, kuba, john.fastabend,
	netdev, bpf, houtao1, zlim.lnx, catalin.marinas, will,
	ard.biesheuvel, linux-arm-kernel

Hello:

This series was applied to bpf/bpf-next.git (master)
by Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>:

On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 17:29:14 +0800 you wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> The simple patchset tries to enable kfunc call for arm64. Patch #1 just
> overrides bpf_jit_supports_kfunc_call() to enable kfunc call, patch #2
> unexports the subtests in ksyms_module.c to fix the confusion in test
> output and patch #3 add a test in ksyms_module.c to ensure s32 is
> sufficient for kfunc offset.
> 
> [...]

Here is the summary with links:
  - [bpf-next,v3,1/3] bpf, arm64: enable kfunc call
    https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf-next/c/b5e975d256db
  - [bpf-next,v3,2/3] selftests/bpf: do not export subtest as standalone test
    (no matching commit)
  - [bpf-next,v3,3/3] selftests/bpf: check whether s32 is sufficient for kfunc offset
    (no matching commit)

You are awesome, thank you!
-- 
Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot.
https://korg.docs.kernel.org/patchwork/pwbot.html



_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/3] bpf, arm64: enable kfunc call
  2022-01-30  9:29   ` Hou Tao
@ 2022-02-04 15:42     ` Daniel Borkmann
  -1 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Borkmann @ 2022-02-04 15:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Hou Tao
  Cc: Alexei Starovoitov, Martin KaFai Lau, Yonghong Song,
	Andrii Nakryiko, David S . Miller, Jakub Kicinski,
	John Fastabend, netdev, bpf, houtao1, Zi Shen Lim,
	Catalin Marinas, Will Deacon, Ard Biesheuvel, linux-arm-kernel

On 1/30/22 10:29 AM, Hou Tao wrote:
> From: Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com>
> 
> Since commit b2eed9b58811 ("arm64/kernel: kaslr: reduce module
> randomization range to 2 GB"), for arm64 whether KASLR is enabled
> or not, the module is placed within 2GB of the kernel region, so
> s32 in bpf_kfunc_desc is sufficient to represente the offset of
> module function relative to __bpf_call_base. The only thing needed
> is to override bpf_jit_supports_kfunc_call().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com>

Could you rebase patch 2 & 3 and resend as they don't apply to bpf-next
right now. Meanwhile, applied this one, thanks a lot!

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/3] bpf, arm64: enable kfunc call
@ 2022-02-04 15:42     ` Daniel Borkmann
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Borkmann @ 2022-02-04 15:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Hou Tao
  Cc: Alexei Starovoitov, Martin KaFai Lau, Yonghong Song,
	Andrii Nakryiko, David S . Miller, Jakub Kicinski,
	John Fastabend, netdev, bpf, houtao1, Zi Shen Lim,
	Catalin Marinas, Will Deacon, Ard Biesheuvel, linux-arm-kernel

On 1/30/22 10:29 AM, Hou Tao wrote:
> From: Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com>
> 
> Since commit b2eed9b58811 ("arm64/kernel: kaslr: reduce module
> randomization range to 2 GB"), for arm64 whether KASLR is enabled
> or not, the module is placed within 2GB of the kernel region, so
> s32 in bpf_kfunc_desc is sufficient to represente the offset of
> module function relative to __bpf_call_base. The only thing needed
> is to override bpf_jit_supports_kfunc_call().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com>

Could you rebase patch 2 & 3 and resend as they don't apply to bpf-next
right now. Meanwhile, applied this one, thanks a lot!

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-02-04 15:43 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-01-30  9:29 [PATCH bpf-next v3 0/3] bpf, arm64: enable kfunc call Hou Tao
2022-01-30  9:29 ` Hou Tao
2022-01-30  9:29 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/3] " Hou Tao
2022-01-30  9:29   ` Hou Tao
2022-02-04 15:42   ` Daniel Borkmann
2022-02-04 15:42     ` Daniel Borkmann
2022-01-30  9:29 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 2/3] selftests/bpf: do not export subtest as standalone test Hou Tao
2022-01-30  9:29   ` Hou Tao
2022-01-30  9:29 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 3/3] selftests/bpf: check whether s32 is sufficient for kfunc offset Hou Tao
2022-01-30  9:29   ` Hou Tao
2022-02-04 15:40 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 0/3] bpf, arm64: enable kfunc call patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
2022-02-04 15:40   ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf

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.