netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Cc: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
	Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>, Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>,
	Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
	KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
	Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
	Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
	clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>,
	Veronika Kabatova <vkabatov@redhat.com>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: FAILED unresolved symbol vfs_truncate on arm64 with LLVM
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 14:26:43 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YCPfEzp3ogCBTBaS@krava> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEf4BzacQrkSMnmeO3sunOs7sfhX1ZoD_Hnk4-cFUK-TpLNqUA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 02:00:29PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:

SNIP

> > > > I'm still trying to build the kernel.. however ;-)
> > > >
> > > > patch below adds the ftrace check only for static functions
> > > > and lets the externa go through.. but as you said, in this
> > > > case we'll need to figure out the 'notrace' and other checks
> > > > ftrace is doing
> > > >
> > > > jirka
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > diff --git a/btf_encoder.c b/btf_encoder.c
> > > > index b124ec20a689..4d147406cfa5 100644
> > > > --- a/btf_encoder.c
> > > > +++ b/btf_encoder.c
> > > > @@ -734,7 +734,7 @@ int cu__encode_btf(struct cu *cu, int verbose, bool force,
> > > >                         continue;
> > > >                 if (!has_arg_names(cu, &fn->proto))
> > > >                         continue;
> > > > -               if (functions_cnt) {
> > > > +               if (!fn->external && functions_cnt) {
> > >
> > > I wouldn't trust DWARF, honestly. Wouldn't checking GLOBAL vs LOCAL
> > > FUNC ELF symbol be more reliable?
> >
> > that'd mean extra bsearch on each processed function,
> > on the ther hand, we'are already slow ;-) I'll check
> > how big the slowdown would be
> >
> 
> We currently record addresses and do binary search. Now we need to
> record address + size and still do binary search with a slightly
> different semantics (find closest entry >= addr). Then just check that
> it overlaps, taking into account the length of the function code. It
> shouldn't result in a noticeable slowdown. Might be actually faster,
> because we might avoid callback function call costs.

I'm still not sure how to handle the external check for function via elf,
but below is change for checking that ftrace addrs are within elf functions

seems to work in my tests, I'll run some more tests and send full patch

jirka


---
diff --git a/btf_encoder.c b/btf_encoder.c
index b124ec20a689..548a12847f99 100644
--- a/btf_encoder.c
+++ b/btf_encoder.c
@@ -36,6 +36,7 @@ struct funcs_layout {
 struct elf_function {
 	const char	*name;
 	unsigned long	 addr;
+	unsigned long	 end;
 	unsigned long	 sh_addr;
 	bool		 generated;
 };
@@ -44,7 +45,7 @@ static struct elf_function *functions;
 static int functions_alloc;
 static int functions_cnt;
 
-static int functions_cmp(const void *_a, const void *_b)
+static int functions_cmp_name(const void *_a, const void *_b)
 {
 	const struct elf_function *a = _a;
 	const struct elf_function *b = _b;
@@ -52,6 +53,16 @@ static int functions_cmp(const void *_a, const void *_b)
 	return strcmp(a->name, b->name);
 }
 
+static int functions_cmp_addr(const void *_a, const void *_b)
+{
+	const struct elf_function *a = _a;
+	const struct elf_function *b = _b;
+
+	if (a->addr == b->addr)
+		return 0;
+	return a->addr < b->addr ? -1 : 1;
+}
+
 static void delete_functions(void)
 {
 	free(functions);
@@ -98,6 +109,7 @@ static int collect_function(struct btf_elf *btfe, GElf_Sym *sym,
 
 	functions[functions_cnt].name = name;
 	functions[functions_cnt].addr = elf_sym__value(sym);
+	functions[functions_cnt].end = (__u64) -1;
 	functions[functions_cnt].sh_addr = sh.sh_addr;
 	functions[functions_cnt].generated = false;
 	functions_cnt++;
@@ -236,9 +248,25 @@ get_kmod_addrs(struct btf_elf *btfe, __u64 **paddrs, __u64 *pcount)
 	return 0;
 }
 
+static bool is_addr_in_func(__u64 addr, struct elf_function *func, bool kmod)
+{
+	/*
+	 * For vmlinux image both addrs[x] and functions[x]::addr
+	 * values are final address and are comparable.
+	 *
+	 * For kernel module addrs[x] is final address, but
+	 * functions[x]::addr is relative address within section
+	 * and needs to be relocated by adding sh_addr.
+	 */
+	__u64 start = kmod ? func->addr + func->sh_addr : func->addr;
+	__u64 end = kmod ? func->end+ func->sh_addr : func->end;
+
+	return start <= addr && addr < end;
+}
+
 static int setup_functions(struct btf_elf *btfe, struct funcs_layout *fl)
 {
-	__u64 *addrs, count, i;
+	__u64 *addrs, count, i_func, i_addr;
 	int functions_valid = 0;
 	bool kmod = false;
 
@@ -266,43 +294,62 @@ static int setup_functions(struct btf_elf *btfe, struct funcs_layout *fl)
 		return 0;
 	}
 
-	qsort(addrs, count, sizeof(addrs[0]), addrs_cmp);
-	qsort(functions, functions_cnt, sizeof(functions[0]), functions_cmp);
-
 	/*
-	 * Let's got through all collected functions and filter
-	 * out those that are not in ftrace.
+	 * Sort both functions and addrs so we can iterate
+	 * both of them simultaneously and found matching
+	 * func/addr pairs.
 	 */
-	for (i = 0; i < functions_cnt; i++) {
-		struct elf_function *func = &functions[i];
-		/*
-		 * For vmlinux image both addrs[x] and functions[x]::addr
-		 * values are final address and are comparable.
-		 *
-		 * For kernel module addrs[x] is final address, but
-		 * functions[x]::addr is relative address within section
-		 * and needs to be relocated by adding sh_addr.
-		 */
-		__u64 addr = kmod ? func->addr + func->sh_addr : func->addr;
+	qsort(addrs, count, sizeof(addrs[0]), addrs_cmp);
+	qsort(functions, functions_cnt, sizeof(functions[0]), functions_cmp_addr);
+
+	for (i_func = 0, i_addr = 0; i_func < functions_cnt; i_func++) {
+		struct elf_function *func = &functions[i_func];
+
+		if (i_func + 1 < functions_cnt)
+			func->end = functions[i_func + 1].addr;
+
+		for (; i_addr < count; i_addr++) {
+			__u64 addr = addrs[i_addr];
+
+			/* Functions are  ahead, catch up with addrs. */
+			if (addr < func->addr)
+				continue;
+
+			/* Addr is within function - mark function as valid. */
+			if (is_addr_in_func(addr, func, kmod)) {
+				/*
+				 * We iterate over sorted array, so we can easily skip
+				 * not valid item and move following valid field into
+				 * its place, and still keep the 'new' array sorted.
+				 */
+				if (i_func != functions_valid)
+					functions[functions_valid] = functions[i_func];
+				functions_valid++;
+				i_addr++;
+			}
 
-		/* Make sure function is within ftrace addresses. */
-		if (bsearch(&addr, addrs, count, sizeof(addrs[0]), addrs_cmp)) {
 			/*
-			 * We iterate over sorted array, so we can easily skip
-			 * not valid item and move following valid field into
-			 * its place, and still keep the 'new' array sorted.
+			 * Addrs are ahead, catch up with functions, or we just
+			 * found valid function and want to move to another.
 			 */
-			if (i != functions_valid)
-				functions[functions_valid] = functions[i];
-			functions_valid++;
+			break;
 		}
 	}
 
+	if (btf_elf__verbose) {
+		printf("Found %d functions out of %d symbols and %llu ftrace addresses.\n",
+			functions_valid, functions_cnt, count);
+	}
+
 	functions_cnt = functions_valid;
 	free(addrs);
 
-	if (btf_elf__verbose)
-		printf("Found %d functions!\n", functions_cnt);
+	/*
+	 * And finaly sort 'valid' functions by name,
+	 * so find_function can be used.
+	 */
+	qsort(functions, functions_cnt, sizeof(functions[0]), functions_cmp_name);
+
 	return 0;
 }
 
@@ -312,7 +359,7 @@ static struct elf_function *find_function(const struct btf_elf *btfe,
 	struct elf_function key = { .name = name };
 
 	return bsearch(&key, functions, functions_cnt, sizeof(functions[0]),
-		       functions_cmp);
+		       functions_cmp_name);
 }
 
 static bool btf_name_char_ok(char c, bool first)


  reply	other threads:[~2021-02-10 13:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-02-09  3:44 FAILED unresolved symbol vfs_truncate on arm64 with LLVM Nathan Chancellor
2021-02-09  4:45 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-02-09  5:23   ` Nathan Chancellor
2021-02-09  6:09     ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-02-09  6:13       ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-02-09  6:56         ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-02-09  7:49           ` Nathan Chancellor
2021-02-09 12:36             ` Jiri Olsa
2021-02-09 15:09               ` Jiri Olsa
2021-02-09 16:13                 ` Jiri Olsa
2021-02-09 16:35                   ` Nathan Chancellor
2021-02-09 17:07                     ` Sedat Dilek
2021-02-09 17:12                       ` Nick Desaulniers
2021-02-09 17:26                         ` Sedat Dilek
2021-02-09 19:06                   ` Jiri Olsa
2021-02-09 19:22                     ` Jiri Olsa
2021-02-09 20:09                     ` Nick Desaulniers
2021-02-09 20:50                       ` Jiri Olsa
2021-02-09 21:41                         ` Jiri Olsa
2021-02-09 23:15                           ` Nathan Chancellor
2021-02-10  0:02                       ` Nathan Chancellor
2021-02-10  0:49                         ` Daniel Kiss
2021-02-10 11:34                         ` David Laight
2021-02-10 12:32                           ` Jiri Olsa
2021-02-09 20:59                 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-02-09 21:55                   ` Jiri Olsa
2021-02-09 22:00                     ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-02-10 13:26                       ` Jiri Olsa [this message]
2021-02-10 18:02                         ` Nathan Chancellor
2021-02-10 18:20                         ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-02-10 18:24                           ` Sedat Dilek
2021-02-10 19:10                           ` Jiri Olsa
2021-02-10 19:21                             ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-02-10 20:13                           ` Jiri Olsa
2021-02-11 15:08                             ` Jiri Olsa
2021-02-11 15:43                               ` Sedat Dilek
2021-02-11 16:07                                 ` Jiri Olsa
2021-02-11 16:36                                   ` Sedat Dilek
2021-02-11 17:24                               ` Nathan Chancellor
2021-02-11 19:59                               ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-02-11 21:47                                 ` Jiri Olsa
2021-02-12 16:38                                 ` Jiri Olsa
2021-02-12 19:22                                   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-02-12 21:29                                     ` Jiri Olsa

Reply instructions:

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:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=YCPfEzp3ogCBTBaS@krava \
    --to=jolsa@redhat.com \
    --cc=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
    --cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
    --cc=kafai@fb.com \
    --cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
    --cc=nathan@kernel.org \
    --cc=ndesaulniers@google.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=songliubraving@fb.com \
    --cc=vkabatov@redhat.com \
    --cc=yhs@fb.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* 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).