From: Florent Revest <email@example.com>
To: Rasmus Villemoes <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: bpf <email@example.com>, Alexei Starovoitov <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <email@example.com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
KP Singh <email@example.com>,
Brendan Jackman <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
open list <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/2] Implement BPF formatted output helpers with bstr_printf
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 15:26:18 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CABRcYmLDBfoM8rOwPf+SdqkmJgtFRLYF94S4Fv2eU=Uwg4asTQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 10:50 AM Rasmus Villemoes
> On 23/04/2021 03.15, Florent Revest wrote:
> > Our formatted output helpers are currently implemented with
> > snprintf-like functions which take arguments as va_list but the types
> > stored in a va_list need to be known at compilation time which causes
> > problems when dealing with arguments from the BPF world that are always
> > u64 but considered differently depending on the format specifiers they
> > are associated with at runtime.
> > This series replaces snprintf usages with bstr_printf calls. This lets
> > us construct a binary representation of arguments in bpf_printf_prepare
> > at runtime that matches an ABI that is neither arch nor compiler
> > specific.
> > This solves a bug reported by Rasmus Villemoes that would mangle
> > arguments on 32 bit machines.
> That's not entirely accurate. The arguments are also mangled on x86-64,
> it's just that in a few cases that goes unnoticed. That's why I
> suggested you try and take your test case (which I assume had been
> passing with flying colours on x86-64) and rearrange the specifiers,
> arguments and expected output string so that the (morally) 32 bit
> arguments end up beyond those-that-end-up-in-the-reg_save_area.
> IOWs, it is the 32 bit arguments that are mangled (because they get
> passed as-if they were actually 64 bits), and that applies on all
> architectures; nothing to do with sizeof(long).
Mh, yes, I get your point and I agree that my description does not
really fit what you reported.
I tried what you suggested though, with the current bpf-next/master on x86_64:
"%u %d %u %d %u %d %u %d %u %d %u %d",
1, -2, 3, -4, 5, -6, 7, -8, 9, -10, 11, -12);
And out is "1 -2 3 -4 5 -6 7 -8 9 -10 11 -12" so i can't seem to be
able to produce the bug you described.
Do you think I'm missing something? Would you try it differently ?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-23 13:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-23 1:15 [PATCH bpf-next 0/2] Implement BPF formatted output helpers with bstr_printf Florent Revest
2021-04-23 1:15 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] seq_file: Add a seq_bprintf function Florent Revest
2021-04-23 1:15 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] bpf: Implement formatted output helpers with bstr_printf Florent Revest
2021-04-23 9:27 ` Rasmus Villemoes
2021-04-23 13:45 ` Florent Revest
2021-04-23 8:50 ` [PATCH bpf-next 0/2] Implement BPF " Rasmus Villemoes
2021-04-23 13:26 ` Florent Revest [this message]
2021-04-23 14:31 ` Rasmus Villemoes
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:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* 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 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).