From: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>,
kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v3 11/11] selftests/bpf: Test that a kfunc gets its __int128 stack argument aligned
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2026 10:10:59 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20261013171059.2141231-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261013170910.2126673-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Add bpf_kfunc_call_test_i128_arg_align(), which takes an __int128 after
seven u64s, in the stack slot after a hole, and returns the low four
bits of its address. OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR() keeps the compiler from taking
the alignment the ABI promises for granted and folding them to 0.
Call it from two subprograms whose frames are 8 bytes apart, so that one
of the calls starts with RSP off by 8 whatever alignment the program
was given, and check that both find the __int128 16-byte aligned.
Without the previous patch, the x86-64 JIT fails it with
run_subtest:FAIL:1552 Unexpected retval: 2 != 0
aggregate_arg/aggregate_arg_kfunc_int128_align:FAIL
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
---
.../selftests/bpf/progs/aggregate_arg_kfunc.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++
.../selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c | 15 +++++++
.../bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod_kfunc.h | 2 +
3 files changed, 59 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/aggregate_arg_kfunc.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/aggregate_arg_kfunc.c
index c87e886423f4..3c3bcb3a02d5 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/aggregate_arg_kfunc.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/aggregate_arg_kfunc.c
@@ -222,6 +222,48 @@ int aggregate_arg_kfunc_int128_pad(struct __sk_buff *skb)
return 0;
}
+/*
+ * The kfunc returns the low four bits of the address of v, which both
+ * conventions pass in a 16-byte aligned stack slot. A program's frame is
+ * only 8-byte aligned on x86-64, so call it from two frames 8 bytes apart:
+ * one of them starts the call off by 8, whatever the program was given.
+ */
+static __noinline __u64 int128_align_frame1(__u64 a, __u64 b)
+{
+ volatile __u64 pad[1];
+ u128 v = ((u128)a << 64) | b;
+
+ pad[0] = a;
+ return bpf_kfunc_call_test_i128_arg_align(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, pad[0], v);
+}
+
+static __noinline __u64 int128_align_frame2(__u64 a, __u64 b)
+{
+ volatile __u64 pad[2];
+ u128 v = ((u128)a << 64) | b;
+
+ pad[0] = a;
+ pad[1] = b;
+ return bpf_kfunc_call_test_i128_arg_align(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, pad[1], pad[0], v);
+}
+
+SEC("tc")
+__arch_x86_64 __arch_arm64
+__load_if_JITed()
+__success __retval(0)
+int aggregate_arg_kfunc_int128_align(struct __sk_buff *skb)
+{
+ __u64 a = skb->len ^ MIX_A;
+ __u64 b = skb->len ^ MIX_B;
+
+ if (int128_align_frame1(a, b))
+ return 1;
+ if (int128_align_frame2(a, b))
+ return 2;
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
#endif /* __SIZEOF_INT128__ */
#endif
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c
index 38edb4addc5b..8550897fdfa6 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c
@@ -1120,6 +1120,20 @@ __bpf_kfunc u64 bpf_kfunc_call_test_i128_arg_pad(u64 a, u64 b, u64 c, u64 d, u64
(u64)v * 8 + (u64)((unsigned __int128)v >> 64) * 9;
}
+/*
+ * The low four bits of the address of v, which follows a stack slot hole: 0 if
+ * the caller passed it in a 16-byte aligned slot, as the x86-64 ABI asks.
+ */
+__bpf_kfunc u64 bpf_kfunc_call_test_i128_arg_align(u64 a, u64 b, u64 c, u64 d, u64 e,
+ u64 f, u64 g, __int128 v)
+{
+ unsigned long addr = (unsigned long)&v;
+
+ /* or the compiler takes the alignment the ABI promises for granted */
+ OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR(addr);
+ return addr & 15;
+}
+
__bpf_kfunc u64 bpf_kfunc_call_test_pair_arg_nofit(u64 a, u64 b, u64 c, u64 d,
struct prog_test_pair_arg s)
{
@@ -1840,6 +1854,7 @@ BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test_i128_arg_odd)
BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test_i128_arg_odd_many)
BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test_i128_arg_stack_hole)
BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test_i128_arg_pad)
+BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test_i128_arg_align)
BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test_pair_arg_nofit)
BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test_pair_arg_tail)
BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test_pair_arg_split8)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod_kfunc.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod_kfunc.h
index a6a93c901416..da0c9b0c38a4 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod_kfunc.h
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod_kfunc.h
@@ -249,6 +249,8 @@ __u64 bpf_kfunc_call_test_i128_arg_stack_hole(__u64 a, __u64 b, __u64 c, __u64 d
struct prog_test_i128_arg w) __ksym;
__u64 bpf_kfunc_call_test_i128_arg_pad(__u64 a, __u64 b, __u64 c, __u64 d, __u64 e,
__u64 f, __u64 g, __int128 v) __ksym;
+__u64 bpf_kfunc_call_test_i128_arg_align(__u64 a, __u64 b, __u64 c, __u64 d, __u64 e,
+ __u64 f, __u64 g, __int128 v) __ksym;
#endif
__u64 bpf_kfunc_call_test_pair_arg_nofit(__u64 a, __u64 b, __u64 c, __u64 d,
struct prog_test_pair_arg s) __ksym;
--
2.53.0-Meta
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-13 17:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-13 17:09 [PATCH bpf-next v3 00/11] bpf: Follow up by-value struct and __int128 argument support Yonghong Song
2026-10-13 17:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 01/11] bpf, x86: Pass a trampoline's stack arguments by the calling convention Yonghong Song
2026-10-13 17:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 02/11] selftests/bpf: Test trampoline stack args in a program that can tail call Yonghong Song
2026-10-13 17:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 03/11] selftests/bpf: Test by-value __int128 kfunc arguments at an odd slot Yonghong Song
2026-10-13 17:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 04/11] bpf: Describe a BPF function to its trampoline as one u64 per slot Yonghong Song
2026-10-13 17:10 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 05/11] bpf, x86: Place trampoline arguments by the x86-64 calling convention Yonghong Song
2026-10-13 17:10 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 06/11] selftests/bpf: Test trampoline args around a 16-byte aligned stack arg Yonghong Song
2026-10-13 17:10 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 07/11] selftests/bpf: Test trampoline args of a BPF function at an odd slot Yonghong Song
2026-10-13 17:10 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 08/11] bpf: Refuse a trampoline on an unreliable static function with stack args Yonghong Song
2026-10-13 17:10 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 09/11] selftests/bpf: Test trampolines on more BPF functions " Yonghong Song
2026-10-13 17:10 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 10/11] bpf, x86: Give a kfunc's stack argument the 16-byte alignment it needs Yonghong Song
2026-10-13 17:10 ` Yonghong Song [this message]
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=20261013171059.2141231-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev \
--to=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=kernel-team@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 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.