From: Amery Hung <ameryhung@gmail.com>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org,
alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com, martin.lau@kernel.org,
eddyz87@gmail.com, ameryhung@gmail.com, kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v3 2/2] selftests/bpf: Test gen_pro/epilogue that generate kfuncs
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2025 08:47:21 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250221164721.1794729-2-ameryhung@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250221164721.1794729-1-ameryhung@gmail.com>
Test gen_prologue and gen_epilogue that generate kfuncs that have not
been seen in the main program.
The main bpf program and return value checks are identical to
pro_epilogue.c introduced in commit 47e69431b57a ("selftests/bpf: Test
gen_prologue and gen_epilogue"). However, now when bpf_testmod_st_ops
detects a program name with prefix "test_kfunc_", it generates slightly
different prologue and epilogue: They still add 1000 to args->a in
prologue, add 10000 to args->a and set r0 to 2 * args->a in epilogue,
but involve kfuncs.
At high level, the alternative version of prologue and epilogue look
like this:
cgrp = bpf_cgroup_from_id(0);
if (cgrp)
bpf_cgroup_release(cgrp);
else
/* Perform what original bpf_testmod_st_ops prologue or
* epilogue does
*/
Since 0 is never a valid cgroup id, the original prologue or epilogue
logic will be performed. As a result, the __retval check should expect
the exact same return value.
Signed-off-by: Amery Hung <ameryhung@gmail.com>
---
include/linux/filter.h | 10 +++
kernel/bpf/btf.c | 1 +
.../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/pro_epilogue.c | 2 +
.../bpf/progs/pro_epilogue_with_kfunc.c | 87 ++++++++++++++++++
.../selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c | 90 +++++++++++++++++++
5 files changed, 190 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/pro_epilogue_with_kfunc.c
diff --git a/include/linux/filter.h b/include/linux/filter.h
index a3ea46281595..3ed6eb9e7c73 100644
--- a/include/linux/filter.h
+++ b/include/linux/filter.h
@@ -469,6 +469,16 @@ static inline bool insn_is_cast_user(const struct bpf_insn *insn)
.off = 0, \
.imm = BPF_CALL_IMM(FUNC) })
+/* Kfunc call */
+
+#define BPF_CALL_KFUNC(OFF, IMM) \
+ ((struct bpf_insn) { \
+ .code = BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, \
+ .dst_reg = 0, \
+ .src_reg = BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL, \
+ .off = OFF, \
+ .imm = IMM })
+
/* Raw code statement block */
#define BPF_RAW_INSN(CODE, DST, SRC, OFF, IMM) \
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/btf.c b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
index 7a7e02dcde84..1927d7e53b5a 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/btf.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
@@ -606,6 +606,7 @@ s32 bpf_find_btf_id(const char *name, u32 kind, struct btf **btf_p)
spin_unlock_bh(&btf_idr_lock);
return ret;
}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(bpf_find_btf_id);
const struct btf_type *btf_type_skip_modifiers(const struct btf *btf,
u32 id, u32 *res_id)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/pro_epilogue.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/pro_epilogue.c
index 509883e6823a..5d3c00a08a88 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/pro_epilogue.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/pro_epilogue.c
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
#include "epilogue_tailcall.skel.h"
#include "pro_epilogue_goto_start.skel.h"
#include "epilogue_exit.skel.h"
+#include "pro_epilogue_with_kfunc.skel.h"
struct st_ops_args {
__u64 a;
@@ -55,6 +56,7 @@ void test_pro_epilogue(void)
RUN_TESTS(pro_epilogue);
RUN_TESTS(pro_epilogue_goto_start);
RUN_TESTS(epilogue_exit);
+ RUN_TESTS(pro_epilogue_with_kfunc);
if (test__start_subtest("tailcall"))
test_tailcall();
}
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/pro_epilogue_with_kfunc.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/pro_epilogue_with_kfunc.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..52175716d5f9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/pro_epilogue_with_kfunc.c
@@ -0,0 +1,87 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+/* Copyright (c) 2025 Meta Platforms, Inc. and affiliates. */
+
+#include <vmlinux.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
+#include "bpf_misc.h"
+#include "../test_kmods/bpf_testmod.h"
+#include "../test_kmods/bpf_testmod_kfunc.h"
+
+char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
+
+void __kfunc_btf_root(void)
+{
+ bpf_kfunc_st_ops_inc10(NULL);
+}
+
+static __noinline __used int subprog(struct st_ops_args *args)
+{
+ args->a += 1;
+ return args->a;
+}
+
+__success
+/* prologue */
+__xlated("0: r8 = r1")
+__xlated("1: r1 = 0")
+__xlated("2: call kernel-function")
+__xlated("3: if r0 != 0x0 goto pc+5")
+__xlated("4: r6 = *(u64 *)(r8 +0)")
+__xlated("5: r7 = *(u64 *)(r6 +0)")
+__xlated("6: r7 += 1000")
+__xlated("7: *(u64 *)(r6 +0) = r7")
+__xlated("8: goto pc+2")
+__xlated("9: r1 = r0")
+__xlated("10: call kernel-function")
+__xlated("11: r1 = r8")
+/* save __u64 *ctx to stack */
+__xlated("12: *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = r1")
+/* main prog */
+__xlated("13: r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 +0)")
+__xlated("14: r6 = r1")
+__xlated("15: call kernel-function")
+__xlated("16: r1 = r6")
+__xlated("17: call pc+")
+/* epilogue */
+__xlated("18: r1 = 0")
+__xlated("19: call kernel-function")
+__xlated("20: if r0 != 0x0 goto pc+6")
+__xlated("21: r1 = *(u64 *)(r10 -8)")
+__xlated("22: r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 +0)")
+__xlated("23: r6 = *(u64 *)(r1 +0)")
+__xlated("24: r6 += 10000")
+__xlated("25: *(u64 *)(r1 +0) = r6")
+__xlated("26: goto pc+2")
+__xlated("27: r1 = r0")
+__xlated("28: call kernel-function")
+__xlated("29: r0 = r6")
+__xlated("30: r0 *= 2")
+__xlated("31: exit")
+SEC("struct_ops/test_pro_epilogue")
+__naked int test_kfunc_pro_epilogue(void)
+{
+ asm volatile (
+ "r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 +0);"
+ "r6 = r1;"
+ "call %[bpf_kfunc_st_ops_inc10];"
+ "r1 = r6;"
+ "call subprog;"
+ "exit;"
+ :
+ : __imm(bpf_kfunc_st_ops_inc10)
+ : __clobber_all);
+}
+
+SEC("syscall")
+__retval(22022) /* (PROLOGUE_A [1000] + KFUNC_INC10 + SUBPROG_A [1] + EPILOGUE_A [10000]) * 2 */
+int syscall_pro_epilogue(void *ctx)
+{
+ struct st_ops_args args = {};
+
+ return bpf_kfunc_st_ops_test_pro_epilogue(&args);
+}
+
+SEC(".struct_ops.link")
+struct bpf_testmod_st_ops pro_epilogue_with_kfunc = {
+ .test_pro_epilogue = (void *)test_kfunc_pro_epilogue,
+};
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c
index 578bfc40dd05..ba250e5d0b3e 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c
@@ -1309,6 +1309,83 @@ static int bpf_test_mod_st_ops__test_pro_epilogue(struct st_ops_args *args)
return 0;
}
+static int bpf_cgroup_from_id_id;
+static int bpf_cgroup_release_id;
+
+static int st_ops_gen_prologue_with_kfunc(struct bpf_insn *insn_buf, bool direct_write,
+ const struct bpf_prog *prog)
+{
+ struct bpf_insn *insn = insn_buf;
+
+ /* r8 = r1; // r8 will be "u64 *ctx".
+ * r1 = 0;
+ * r0 = bpf_cgroup_from_id(r1);
+ * if r0 != 0 goto pc+5;
+ * r6 = r8[0]; // r6 will be "struct st_ops *args".
+ * r7 = r6->a;
+ * r7 += 1000;
+ * r6->a = r7;
+ * goto pc+2;
+ * r1 = r0;
+ * bpf_cgroup_release(r1);
+ * r1 = r8;
+ */
+ *insn++ = BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_8, BPF_REG_1);
+ *insn++ = BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 0);
+ *insn++ = BPF_CALL_KFUNC(0, bpf_cgroup_from_id_id);
+ *insn++ = BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 5);
+ *insn++ = BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_8, 0);
+ *insn++ = BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_7, BPF_REG_6, offsetof(struct st_ops_args, a));
+ *insn++ = BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_7, 1000);
+ *insn++ = BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_7, offsetof(struct st_ops_args, a));
+ *insn++ = BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JA, 0, 0, 2);
+ *insn++ = BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0);
+ *insn++ = BPF_CALL_KFUNC(0, bpf_cgroup_release_id),
+ *insn++ = BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_8);
+ *insn++ = prog->insnsi[0];
+
+ return insn - insn_buf;
+}
+
+static int st_ops_gen_epilogue_with_kfunc(struct bpf_insn *insn_buf, const struct bpf_prog *prog,
+ s16 ctx_stack_off)
+{
+ struct bpf_insn *insn = insn_buf;
+
+ /* r1 = 0;
+ * r0 = bpf_cgroup_from_id(r1);
+ * if r0 != 0 goto pc+6;
+ * r1 = stack[ctx_stack_off]; // r1 will be "u64 *ctx"
+ * r1 = r1[0]; // r1 will be "struct st_ops *args"
+ * r6 = r1->a;
+ * r6 += 10000;
+ * r1->a = r6;
+ * goto pc+2
+ * r1 = r0;
+ * bpf_cgroup_release(r1);
+ * r0 = r6;
+ * r0 *= 2;
+ * BPF_EXIT;
+ */
+ *insn++ = BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 0);
+ *insn++ = BPF_CALL_KFUNC(0, bpf_cgroup_from_id_id);
+ *insn++ = BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 6);
+ *insn++ = BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_FP, ctx_stack_off);
+ *insn++ = BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_1, 0);
+ *insn++ = BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_1, offsetof(struct st_ops_args, a));
+ *insn++ = BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_6, 10000);
+ *insn++ = BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_6, offsetof(struct st_ops_args, a));
+ *insn++ = BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JA, 0, 0, 2);
+ *insn++ = BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0);
+ *insn++ = BPF_CALL_KFUNC(0, bpf_cgroup_release_id),
+ *insn++ = BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_6);
+ *insn++ = BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_MUL, BPF_REG_0, 2);
+ *insn++ = BPF_EXIT_INSN();
+
+ return insn - insn_buf;
+}
+
+#define KFUNC_PRO_EPI_PREFIX "test_kfunc_"
static int st_ops_gen_prologue(struct bpf_insn *insn_buf, bool direct_write,
const struct bpf_prog *prog)
{
@@ -1318,6 +1395,9 @@ static int st_ops_gen_prologue(struct bpf_insn *insn_buf, bool direct_write,
strcmp(prog->aux->attach_func_name, "test_pro_epilogue"))
return 0;
+ if (!strncmp(prog->aux->name, KFUNC_PRO_EPI_PREFIX, strlen(KFUNC_PRO_EPI_PREFIX)))
+ return st_ops_gen_prologue_with_kfunc(insn_buf, direct_write, prog);
+
/* r6 = r1[0]; // r6 will be "struct st_ops *args". r1 is "u64 *ctx".
* r7 = r6->a;
* r7 += 1000;
@@ -1341,6 +1421,9 @@ static int st_ops_gen_epilogue(struct bpf_insn *insn_buf, const struct bpf_prog
strcmp(prog->aux->attach_func_name, "test_pro_epilogue"))
return 0;
+ if (!strncmp(prog->aux->name, KFUNC_PRO_EPI_PREFIX, strlen(KFUNC_PRO_EPI_PREFIX)))
+ return st_ops_gen_epilogue_with_kfunc(insn_buf, prog, ctx_stack_off);
+
/* r1 = stack[ctx_stack_off]; // r1 will be "u64 *ctx"
* r1 = r1[0]; // r1 will be "struct st_ops *args"
* r6 = r1->a;
@@ -1411,6 +1494,13 @@ static void st_ops_unreg(void *kdata, struct bpf_link *link)
static int st_ops_init(struct btf *btf)
{
+ struct btf *kfunc_btf;
+
+ bpf_cgroup_from_id_id = bpf_find_btf_id("bpf_cgroup_from_id", BTF_KIND_FUNC, &kfunc_btf);
+ bpf_cgroup_release_id = bpf_find_btf_id("bpf_cgroup_release", BTF_KIND_FUNC, &kfunc_btf);
+ if (!bpf_cgroup_from_id_id || !bpf_cgroup_release_id)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
return 0;
}
--
2.47.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-02-21 16:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-02-21 16:47 [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/2] bpf: Search and add kfuncs in struct_ops prologue and epilogue Amery Hung
2025-02-21 16:47 ` Amery Hung [this message]
2025-02-25 20:53 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 2/2] selftests/bpf: Test gen_pro/epilogue that generate kfuncs Martin KaFai Lau
2025-02-25 21:12 ` Amery Hung
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=20250221164721.1794729-2-ameryhung@gmail.com \
--to=ameryhung@gmail.com \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
/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 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.