* [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/5] core_reloc fixes for s390
@ 2021-10-25 13:12 Ilya Leoshkevich
2021-10-25 13:12 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/5] libbpf: Use __BYTE_ORDER__ Ilya Leoshkevich
` (4 more replies)
0 siblings, 5 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Ilya Leoshkevich @ 2021-10-25 13:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko
Cc: bpf, Heiko Carstens, Vasily Gorbik, Ilya Leoshkevich
v1: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211021234653.643302-1-iii@linux.ibm.com/
v1 -> v2: Drop bpf_core_calc_field_relo() restructuring, split
__BYTE_ORDER__ change.
Hi,
this series fixes test failures in core_reloc on s390.
Patches 1-4 replace __BYTE_ORDER with __BYTE_ORDER__ in order to fix an
endianness bug and make the code consistent.
Patch 5 fixes an endianness issue in test_core_reloc_mods.
Best regards,
Ilya
Ilya Leoshkevich (5):
libbpf: Use __BYTE_ORDER__
selftests/bpf: Use __BYTE_ORDER__
samples: seccomp: use __BYTE_ORDER__
selftests/seccomp: Use __BYTE_ORDER__
selftests/bpf: Fix test_core_reloc_mods on big-endian machines
samples/seccomp/bpf-helper.h | 8 ++++----
tools/lib/bpf/bpf_core_read.h | 2 +-
tools/lib/bpf/btf.c | 4 ++--
tools/lib/bpf/btf_dump.c | 8 ++++----
tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 4 ++--
tools/lib/bpf/linker.c | 12 ++++++------
tools/lib/bpf/relo_core.c | 2 +-
.../testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_endian.c | 6 +++---
.../selftests/bpf/progs/test_core_reloc_mods.c | 9 +++++++++
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sysctl.c | 4 ++--
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/ctx_skb.c | 14 +++++++-------
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/lwt.c | 2 +-
.../bpf/verifier/perf_event_sample_period.c | 6 +++---
tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c | 6 +++---
14 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
--
2.31.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/5] libbpf: Use __BYTE_ORDER__
2021-10-25 13:12 [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/5] core_reloc fixes for s390 Ilya Leoshkevich
@ 2021-10-25 13:12 ` Ilya Leoshkevich
2021-10-25 22:44 ` Daniel Borkmann
2021-10-25 13:12 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/5] selftests/bpf: " Ilya Leoshkevich
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Ilya Leoshkevich @ 2021-10-25 13:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko
Cc: bpf, Heiko Carstens, Vasily Gorbik, Ilya Leoshkevich
__BYTE_ORDER is supposed to be defined by a libc, and __BYTE_ORDER__ -
by a compiler. bpf_core_read.h checks __BYTE_ORDER == __LITTLE_ENDIAN,
which is true if neither are defined, leading to incorrect behavior on
big-endian hosts if libc headers are not included, which is often the
case.
Instead of changing just this particular location, replace all
occurrences of __BYTE_ORDER with __BYTE_ORDER__ in libbpf code for
consistency.
Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>
---
tools/lib/bpf/bpf_core_read.h | 2 +-
tools/lib/bpf/btf.c | 4 ++--
tools/lib/bpf/btf_dump.c | 8 ++++----
tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 4 ++--
tools/lib/bpf/linker.c | 12 ++++++------
tools/lib/bpf/relo_core.c | 2 +-
6 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_core_read.h b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_core_read.h
index 09ebe3db5f2f..e4aa9996a550 100644
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_core_read.h
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_core_read.h
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ enum bpf_enum_value_kind {
#define __CORE_RELO(src, field, info) \
__builtin_preserve_field_info((src)->field, BPF_FIELD_##info)
-#if __BYTE_ORDER == __LITTLE_ENDIAN
+#if __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__
#define __CORE_BITFIELD_PROBE_READ(dst, src, fld) \
bpf_probe_read_kernel( \
(void *)dst, \
diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/btf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/btf.c
index ef924fc2c911..0c628c33e23b 100644
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/btf.c
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/btf.c
@@ -538,9 +538,9 @@ int btf__set_pointer_size(struct btf *btf, size_t ptr_sz)
static bool is_host_big_endian(void)
{
-#if __BYTE_ORDER == __LITTLE_ENDIAN
+#if __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__
return false;
-#elif __BYTE_ORDER == __BIG_ENDIAN
+#elif __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_BIG_ENDIAN__
return true;
#else
# error "Unrecognized __BYTE_ORDER__"
diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/btf_dump.c b/tools/lib/bpf/btf_dump.c
index 8e05ab44c22a..17db62b5002e 100644
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/btf_dump.c
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/btf_dump.c
@@ -1576,11 +1576,11 @@ static int btf_dump_get_bitfield_value(struct btf_dump *d,
/* Bitfield value retrieval is done in two steps; first relevant bytes are
* stored in num, then we left/right shift num to eliminate irrelevant bits.
*/
-#if __BYTE_ORDER == __LITTLE_ENDIAN
+#if __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__
for (i = t->size - 1; i >= 0; i--)
num = num * 256 + bytes[i];
nr_copy_bits = bit_sz + bits_offset;
-#elif __BYTE_ORDER == __BIG_ENDIAN
+#elif __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_BIG_ENDIAN__
for (i = 0; i < t->size; i++)
num = num * 256 + bytes[i];
nr_copy_bits = t->size * 8 - bits_offset;
@@ -1700,10 +1700,10 @@ static int btf_dump_int_data(struct btf_dump *d,
/* avoid use of __int128 as some 32-bit platforms do not
* support it.
*/
-#if __BYTE_ORDER == __LITTLE_ENDIAN
+#if __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__
lsi = ints[0];
msi = ints[1];
-#elif __BYTE_ORDER == __BIG_ENDIAN
+#elif __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_BIG_ENDIAN__
lsi = ints[1];
msi = ints[0];
#else
diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
index 604abe00785f..cd6132c5a416 100644
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
@@ -1299,10 +1299,10 @@ static int bpf_object__elf_init(struct bpf_object *obj)
static int bpf_object__check_endianness(struct bpf_object *obj)
{
-#if __BYTE_ORDER == __LITTLE_ENDIAN
+#if __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__
if (obj->efile.ehdr->e_ident[EI_DATA] == ELFDATA2LSB)
return 0;
-#elif __BYTE_ORDER == __BIG_ENDIAN
+#elif __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_BIG_ENDIAN__
if (obj->efile.ehdr->e_ident[EI_DATA] == ELFDATA2MSB)
return 0;
#else
diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/linker.c b/tools/lib/bpf/linker.c
index 7bf658fbda80..ce0800e61dc7 100644
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/linker.c
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/linker.c
@@ -323,12 +323,12 @@ static int init_output_elf(struct bpf_linker *linker, const char *file)
linker->elf_hdr->e_machine = EM_BPF;
linker->elf_hdr->e_type = ET_REL;
-#if __BYTE_ORDER == __LITTLE_ENDIAN
+#if __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__
linker->elf_hdr->e_ident[EI_DATA] = ELFDATA2LSB;
-#elif __BYTE_ORDER == __BIG_ENDIAN
+#elif __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_BIG_ENDIAN__
linker->elf_hdr->e_ident[EI_DATA] = ELFDATA2MSB;
#else
-#error "Unknown __BYTE_ORDER"
+#error "Unknown __BYTE_ORDER__"
#endif
/* STRTAB */
@@ -538,12 +538,12 @@ static int linker_load_obj_file(struct bpf_linker *linker, const char *filename,
const struct bpf_linker_file_opts *opts,
struct src_obj *obj)
{
-#if __BYTE_ORDER == __LITTLE_ENDIAN
+#if __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__
const int host_endianness = ELFDATA2LSB;
-#elif __BYTE_ORDER == __BIG_ENDIAN
+#elif __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_BIG_ENDIAN__
const int host_endianness = ELFDATA2MSB;
#else
-#error "Unknown __BYTE_ORDER"
+#error "Unknown __BYTE_ORDER__"
#endif
int err = 0;
Elf_Scn *scn;
diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/relo_core.c b/tools/lib/bpf/relo_core.c
index 4016ed492d0c..b5b8956a1be8 100644
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/relo_core.c
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/relo_core.c
@@ -662,7 +662,7 @@ static int bpf_core_calc_field_relo(const char *prog_name,
*validate = true; /* signedness is never ambiguous */
break;
case BPF_FIELD_LSHIFT_U64:
-#if __BYTE_ORDER == __LITTLE_ENDIAN
+#if __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__
*val = 64 - (bit_off + bit_sz - byte_off * 8);
#else
*val = (8 - byte_sz) * 8 + (bit_off - byte_off * 8);
--
2.31.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/5] selftests/bpf: Use __BYTE_ORDER__
2021-10-25 13:12 [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/5] core_reloc fixes for s390 Ilya Leoshkevich
2021-10-25 13:12 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/5] libbpf: Use __BYTE_ORDER__ Ilya Leoshkevich
@ 2021-10-25 13:12 ` Ilya Leoshkevich
2021-10-25 13:12 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/5] samples: seccomp: use __BYTE_ORDER__ Ilya Leoshkevich
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Ilya Leoshkevich @ 2021-10-25 13:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko
Cc: bpf, Heiko Carstens, Vasily Gorbik, Ilya Leoshkevich
Use the compiler-defined __BYTE_ORDER__ instead of the libc-defined
__BYTE_ORDER for consistency.
Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>
---
.../testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_endian.c | 6 +++---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sysctl.c | 4 ++--
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/ctx_skb.c | 14 +++++++-------
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/lwt.c | 2 +-
.../bpf/verifier/perf_event_sample_period.c | 6 +++---
5 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_endian.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_endian.c
index 2653cc482df4..8afbf3d0b89a 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_endian.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_endian.c
@@ -7,12 +7,12 @@
#include <bpf/btf.h>
void test_btf_endian() {
-#if __BYTE_ORDER == __LITTLE_ENDIAN
+#if __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__
enum btf_endianness endian = BTF_LITTLE_ENDIAN;
-#elif __BYTE_ORDER == __BIG_ENDIAN
+#elif __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_BIG_ENDIAN__
enum btf_endianness endian = BTF_BIG_ENDIAN;
#else
-#error "Unrecognized __BYTE_ORDER"
+#error "Unrecognized __BYTE_ORDER__"
#endif
enum btf_endianness swap_endian = 1 - endian;
struct btf *btf = NULL, *swap_btf = NULL;
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sysctl.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sysctl.c
index a20a919244c0..a3bb6d399daa 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sysctl.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sysctl.c
@@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ static struct sysctl_test tests[] = {
.descr = "ctx:write sysctl:write read ok narrow",
.insns = {
/* u64 w = (u16)write & 1; */
-#if __BYTE_ORDER == __LITTLE_ENDIAN
+#if __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_H, BPF_REG_7, BPF_REG_1,
offsetof(struct bpf_sysctl, write)),
#else
@@ -184,7 +184,7 @@ static struct sysctl_test tests[] = {
.descr = "ctx:file_pos sysctl:read read ok narrow",
.insns = {
/* If (file_pos == X) */
-#if __BYTE_ORDER == __LITTLE_ENDIAN
+#if __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_7, BPF_REG_1,
offsetof(struct bpf_sysctl, file_pos)),
#else
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/ctx_skb.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/ctx_skb.c
index 9e1a30b94197..83cecfbd6739 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/ctx_skb.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/ctx_skb.c
@@ -502,7 +502,7 @@
"check skb->hash byte load permitted",
.insns = {
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
-#if __BYTE_ORDER == __LITTLE_ENDIAN
+#if __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1,
offsetof(struct __sk_buff, hash)),
#else
@@ -537,7 +537,7 @@
"check skb->hash byte load permitted 3",
.insns = {
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
-#if __BYTE_ORDER == __LITTLE_ENDIAN
+#if __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1,
offsetof(struct __sk_buff, hash) + 3),
#else
@@ -646,7 +646,7 @@
"check skb->hash half load permitted",
.insns = {
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
-#if __BYTE_ORDER == __LITTLE_ENDIAN
+#if __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_H, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1,
offsetof(struct __sk_buff, hash)),
#else
@@ -661,7 +661,7 @@
"check skb->hash half load permitted 2",
.insns = {
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
-#if __BYTE_ORDER == __LITTLE_ENDIAN
+#if __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_H, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1,
offsetof(struct __sk_buff, hash) + 2),
#else
@@ -676,7 +676,7 @@
"check skb->hash half load not permitted, unaligned 1",
.insns = {
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
-#if __BYTE_ORDER == __LITTLE_ENDIAN
+#if __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_H, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1,
offsetof(struct __sk_buff, hash) + 1),
#else
@@ -693,7 +693,7 @@
"check skb->hash half load not permitted, unaligned 3",
.insns = {
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
-#if __BYTE_ORDER == __LITTLE_ENDIAN
+#if __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_H, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1,
offsetof(struct __sk_buff, hash) + 3),
#else
@@ -951,7 +951,7 @@
"check skb->data half load not permitted",
.insns = {
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
-#if __BYTE_ORDER == __LITTLE_ENDIAN
+#if __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_H, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1,
offsetof(struct __sk_buff, data)),
#else
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/lwt.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/lwt.c
index 2cab6a3966bb..5c8944d0b091 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/lwt.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/lwt.c
@@ -174,7 +174,7 @@
"check skb->tc_classid half load not permitted for lwt prog",
.insns = {
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
-#if __BYTE_ORDER == __LITTLE_ENDIAN
+#if __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_H, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1,
offsetof(struct __sk_buff, tc_classid)),
#else
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/perf_event_sample_period.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/perf_event_sample_period.c
index 471c1a5950d8..d8a9b1a1f9a2 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/perf_event_sample_period.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/perf_event_sample_period.c
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"check bpf_perf_event_data->sample_period byte load permitted",
.insns = {
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
-#if __BYTE_ORDER == __LITTLE_ENDIAN
+#if __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1,
offsetof(struct bpf_perf_event_data, sample_period)),
#else
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@
"check bpf_perf_event_data->sample_period half load permitted",
.insns = {
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
-#if __BYTE_ORDER == __LITTLE_ENDIAN
+#if __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_H, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1,
offsetof(struct bpf_perf_event_data, sample_period)),
#else
@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@
"check bpf_perf_event_data->sample_period word load permitted",
.insns = {
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
-#if __BYTE_ORDER == __LITTLE_ENDIAN
+#if __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1,
offsetof(struct bpf_perf_event_data, sample_period)),
#else
--
2.31.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/5] samples: seccomp: use __BYTE_ORDER__
2021-10-25 13:12 [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/5] core_reloc fixes for s390 Ilya Leoshkevich
2021-10-25 13:12 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/5] libbpf: Use __BYTE_ORDER__ Ilya Leoshkevich
2021-10-25 13:12 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/5] selftests/bpf: " Ilya Leoshkevich
@ 2021-10-25 13:12 ` Ilya Leoshkevich
2021-10-25 13:12 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 4/5] selftests/seccomp: Use __BYTE_ORDER__ Ilya Leoshkevich
2021-10-25 13:12 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 5/5] selftests/bpf: Fix test_core_reloc_mods on big-endian machines Ilya Leoshkevich
4 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Ilya Leoshkevich @ 2021-10-25 13:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko
Cc: bpf, Heiko Carstens, Vasily Gorbik, Ilya Leoshkevich
Use the compiler-defined __BYTE_ORDER__ instead of the libc-defined
__BYTE_ORDER for consistency.
Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>
---
samples/seccomp/bpf-helper.h | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/samples/seccomp/bpf-helper.h b/samples/seccomp/bpf-helper.h
index 0cc9816fe8e8..417e48a4c4df 100644
--- a/samples/seccomp/bpf-helper.h
+++ b/samples/seccomp/bpf-helper.h
@@ -62,9 +62,9 @@ void seccomp_bpf_print(struct sock_filter *filter, size_t count);
#define EXPAND(...) __VA_ARGS__
/* Ensure that we load the logically correct offset. */
-#if __BYTE_ORDER == __LITTLE_ENDIAN
+#if __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__
#define LO_ARG(idx) offsetof(struct seccomp_data, args[(idx)])
-#elif __BYTE_ORDER == __BIG_ENDIAN
+#elif __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_BIG_ENDIAN__
#define LO_ARG(idx) offsetof(struct seccomp_data, args[(idx)]) + sizeof(__u32)
#else
#error "Unknown endianness"
@@ -85,10 +85,10 @@ void seccomp_bpf_print(struct sock_filter *filter, size_t count);
#elif __BITS_PER_LONG == 64
/* Ensure that we load the logically correct offset. */
-#if __BYTE_ORDER == __LITTLE_ENDIAN
+#if __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__
#define ENDIAN(_lo, _hi) _lo, _hi
#define HI_ARG(idx) offsetof(struct seccomp_data, args[(idx)]) + sizeof(__u32)
-#elif __BYTE_ORDER == __BIG_ENDIAN
+#elif __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_BIG_ENDIAN__
#define ENDIAN(_lo, _hi) _hi, _lo
#define HI_ARG(idx) offsetof(struct seccomp_data, args[(idx)])
#endif
--
2.31.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [PATCH bpf-next v2 4/5] selftests/seccomp: Use __BYTE_ORDER__
2021-10-25 13:12 [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/5] core_reloc fixes for s390 Ilya Leoshkevich
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2021-10-25 13:12 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/5] samples: seccomp: use __BYTE_ORDER__ Ilya Leoshkevich
@ 2021-10-25 13:12 ` Ilya Leoshkevich
2021-10-25 13:12 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 5/5] selftests/bpf: Fix test_core_reloc_mods on big-endian machines Ilya Leoshkevich
4 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Ilya Leoshkevich @ 2021-10-25 13:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko
Cc: bpf, Heiko Carstens, Vasily Gorbik, Ilya Leoshkevich
Use the compiler-defined __BYTE_ORDER__ instead of the libc-defined
__BYTE_ORDER for consistency.
Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>
---
tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
index 1d64891e6492..d425688cf59c 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
@@ -276,12 +276,12 @@ int seccomp(unsigned int op, unsigned int flags, void *args)
}
#endif
-#if __BYTE_ORDER == __LITTLE_ENDIAN
+#if __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__
#define syscall_arg(_n) (offsetof(struct seccomp_data, args[_n]))
-#elif __BYTE_ORDER == __BIG_ENDIAN
+#elif __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_BIG_ENDIAN__
#define syscall_arg(_n) (offsetof(struct seccomp_data, args[_n]) + sizeof(__u32))
#else
-#error "wut? Unknown __BYTE_ORDER?!"
+#error "wut? Unknown __BYTE_ORDER__?!"
#endif
#define SIBLING_EXIT_UNKILLED 0xbadbeef
--
2.31.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [PATCH bpf-next v2 5/5] selftests/bpf: Fix test_core_reloc_mods on big-endian machines
2021-10-25 13:12 [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/5] core_reloc fixes for s390 Ilya Leoshkevich
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2021-10-25 13:12 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 4/5] selftests/seccomp: Use __BYTE_ORDER__ Ilya Leoshkevich
@ 2021-10-25 13:12 ` Ilya Leoshkevich
4 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Ilya Leoshkevich @ 2021-10-25 13:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko
Cc: bpf, Heiko Carstens, Vasily Gorbik, Ilya Leoshkevich
This is the same as commit d164dd9a5c08 ("selftests/bpf: Fix
test_core_autosize on big-endian machines"), but for
test_core_reloc_mods.
Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_core_reloc_mods.c | 9 +++++++++
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_core_reloc_mods.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_core_reloc_mods.c
index 8b533db4a7a5..b2ded497572a 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_core_reloc_mods.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_core_reloc_mods.c
@@ -42,7 +42,16 @@ struct core_reloc_mods {
core_reloc_mods_substruct_t h;
};
+#if __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__
#define CORE_READ(dst, src) bpf_core_read(dst, sizeof(*(dst)), src)
+#else
+#define CORE_READ(dst, src) ({ \
+ int __sz = sizeof(*(dst)) < sizeof(*(src)) ? sizeof(*(dst)) : \
+ sizeof(*(src)); \
+ bpf_core_read((char *)(dst) + sizeof(*(dst)) - __sz, __sz, \
+ (const char *)(src) + sizeof(*(src)) - __sz); \
+})
+#endif
SEC("raw_tracepoint/sys_enter")
int test_core_mods(void *ctx)
--
2.31.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/5] libbpf: Use __BYTE_ORDER__
2021-10-25 13:12 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/5] libbpf: Use __BYTE_ORDER__ Ilya Leoshkevich
@ 2021-10-25 22:44 ` Daniel Borkmann
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Borkmann @ 2021-10-25 22:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ilya Leoshkevich, Alexei Starovoitov, Andrii Nakryiko
Cc: bpf, Heiko Carstens, Vasily Gorbik
On 10/25/21 3:12 PM, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
> __BYTE_ORDER is supposed to be defined by a libc, and __BYTE_ORDER__ -
> by a compiler. bpf_core_read.h checks __BYTE_ORDER == __LITTLE_ENDIAN,
> which is true if neither are defined, leading to incorrect behavior on
> big-endian hosts if libc headers are not included, which is often the
> case.
>
> Instead of changing just this particular location, replace all
> occurrences of __BYTE_ORDER with __BYTE_ORDER__ in libbpf code for
> consistency.
ACK, that is definitely broken as is - we had similar issue back then with the
bpf_{htons,ntohs}() helpers, details: 78a5a93c1eeb ("bpf, tests: fix endianness
selection").
The bpf_core_read.h change I would split out as a separate commit along with a
proper Fixes tag so it could potentially be cherry-picked easier (since the
remainder in here is a cleanup for consistency and not used out of the BPF prog
where this issue exists).
> Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
> tools/lib/bpf/bpf_core_read.h | 2 +-
> tools/lib/bpf/btf.c | 4 ++--
> tools/lib/bpf/btf_dump.c | 8 ++++----
> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 4 ++--
> tools/lib/bpf/linker.c | 12 ++++++------
> tools/lib/bpf/relo_core.c | 2 +-
> 6 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
Thanks,
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-10-25 22:44 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-10-25 13:12 [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/5] core_reloc fixes for s390 Ilya Leoshkevich
2021-10-25 13:12 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/5] libbpf: Use __BYTE_ORDER__ Ilya Leoshkevich
2021-10-25 22:44 ` Daniel Borkmann
2021-10-25 13:12 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/5] selftests/bpf: " Ilya Leoshkevich
2021-10-25 13:12 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/5] samples: seccomp: use __BYTE_ORDER__ Ilya Leoshkevich
2021-10-25 13:12 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 4/5] selftests/seccomp: Use __BYTE_ORDER__ Ilya Leoshkevich
2021-10-25 13:12 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 5/5] selftests/bpf: Fix test_core_reloc_mods on big-endian machines Ilya Leoshkevich
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).