[PATCH v4 1/4] samples/bpf: Use getppid instead of getpgrp for array map stress

[PATCH v4 1/4] samples/bpf: Use getppid instead of getpgrp for array map stress

[Joel Fernandes]

When cross-compiling the bpf sample map_perf_test for aarch64, I find that
__NR_getpgrp is undefined. This causes build errors. This syscall is deprecated
and requires defining __ARCH_WANT_SYSCALL_DEPRECATED. To avoid having to define
that, just use a different syscall (getppid) for the array map stress test.

Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
---
 samples/bpf/map_perf_test_kern.c | 2 +-
 samples/bpf/map_perf_test_user.c | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/samples/bpf/map_perf_test_kern.c b/samples/bpf/map_perf_test_kern.c
index 098c857f1eda..2b2ffb97018b 100644
--- a/samples/bpf/map_perf_test_kern.c
+++ b/samples/bpf/map_perf_test_kern.c
@@ -266,7 +266,7 @@ int stress_hash_map_lookup(struct pt_regs *ctx)
 	return 0;
 }
 
-SEC("kprobe/sys_getpgrp")
+SEC("kprobe/sys_getppid")
 int stress_array_map_lookup(struct pt_regs *ctx)
 {
 	u32 key = 1, i;
diff --git a/samples/bpf/map_perf_test_user.c b/samples/bpf/map_perf_test_user.c
index f388254896f6..a0310fc70057 100644
--- a/samples/bpf/map_perf_test_user.c
+++ b/samples/bpf/map_perf_test_user.c
@@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ static void test_array_lookup(int cpu)
 
 	start_time = time_get_ns();
 	for (i = 0; i < max_cnt; i++)
-		syscall(__NR_getpgrp, 0);
+		syscall(__NR_getppid, 0);
 	printf("%d:array_lookup %lld lookups per sec\n",
 	       cpu, max_cnt * 1000000000ll * 64 / (time_get_ns() - start_time));
 }
-- 
2.14.1.821.g8fa685d3b7-goog

[PATCH v4 2/4] samples/bpf: Enable cross compiler support

[Joel Fernandes]

When cross compiling, bpf samples use HOSTCC for compiling the non-BPF part of
the sample, however what we really want is to use the cross compiler to build
for the cross target since that is what will load and run the BPF sample.
Detect this and compile samples correctly.

Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
---
 samples/bpf/Makefile | 5 +++++
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)

diff --git a/samples/bpf/Makefile b/samples/bpf/Makefile
index cf17c7932a6e..13f74b67ca44 100644
--- a/samples/bpf/Makefile
+++ b/samples/bpf/Makefile
@@ -177,6 +177,11 @@ HOSTLOADLIBES_syscall_tp += -lelf
 LLC ?= llc
 CLANG ?= clang
 
+# Detect that we're cross compiling and use the cross compiler
+ifdef CROSS_COMPILE
+HOSTCC = $(CROSS_COMPILE)gcc
+endif
+
 # Trick to allow make to be run from this directory
 all:
 	$(MAKE) -C ../../ $(CURDIR)/
-- 
2.14.1.821.g8fa685d3b7-goog

Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] samples/bpf: Enable cross compiler support

[Daniel Borkmann]

On 09/20/2017 06:11 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> When cross compiling, bpf samples use HOSTCC for compiling the non-BPF part of
> the sample, however what we really want is to use the cross compiler to build
> for the cross target since that is what will load and run the BPF sample.
> Detect this and compile samples correctly.
>
> Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>

Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>

[PATCH v4 3/4] samples/bpf: Fix pt_regs issues when cross-compiling

[Joel Fernandes]

BPF samples fail to build when cross-compiling for ARM64 because of incorrect
pt_regs param selection. This is because clang defines __x86_64__ and
bpf_headers thinks we're building for x86. Since clang is building for the BPF
target, it shouldn't make assumptions about what target the BPF program is
going to run on. To fix this, lets pass ARCH so the header knows which target
the BPF program is being compiled for and can use the correct pt_regs code.

Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
---
 samples/bpf/Makefile                      |  2 +-
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_helpers.h | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
 2 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/samples/bpf/Makefile b/samples/bpf/Makefile
index 13f74b67ca44..ebc2ad69b62c 100644
--- a/samples/bpf/Makefile
+++ b/samples/bpf/Makefile
@@ -230,7 +230,7 @@ $(obj)/%.o: $(src)/%.c
 	$(CLANG) $(NOSTDINC_FLAGS) $(LINUXINCLUDE) $(EXTRA_CFLAGS) -I$(obj) \
 		-I$(srctree)/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/ \
 		-D__KERNEL__ -D__ASM_SYSREG_H -Wno-unused-value -Wno-pointer-sign \
-		-Wno-compare-distinct-pointer-types \
+		-D__TARGET_ARCH_$(ARCH) -Wno-compare-distinct-pointer-types \
 		-Wno-gnu-variable-sized-type-not-at-end \
 		-Wno-address-of-packed-member -Wno-tautological-compare \
 		-Wno-unknown-warning-option \
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_helpers.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
index 36fb9161b34a..4875395b0b52 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
@@ -109,7 +109,47 @@ static int (*bpf_skb_under_cgroup)(void *ctx, void *map, int index) =
 static int (*bpf_skb_change_head)(void *, int len, int flags) =
 	(void *) BPF_FUNC_skb_change_head;
 
+/* Scan the ARCH passed in from ARCH env variable (see Makefile) */
+#if defined(__TARGET_ARCH_x86)
+	#define bpf_target_x86
+	#define bpf_target_defined
+#elif defined(__TARGET_ARCH_s930x)
+	#define bpf_target_s930x
+	#define bpf_target_defined
+#elif defined(__TARGET_ARCH_arm64)
+	#define bpf_target_arm64
+	#define bpf_target_defined
+#elif defined(__TARGET_ARCH_mips)
+	#define bpf_target_mips
+	#define bpf_target_defined
+#elif defined(__TARGET_ARCH_powerpc)
+	#define bpf_target_powerpc
+	#define bpf_target_defined
+#elif defined(__TARGET_ARCH_sparc)
+	#define bpf_target_sparc
+	#define bpf_target_defined
+#else
+	#undef bpf_target_defined
+#endif
+
+/* Fall back to what the compiler says */
+#ifndef bpf_target_defined
 #if defined(__x86_64__)
+	#define bpf_target_x86
+#elif defined(__s390x__)
+	#define bpf_target_s930x
+#elif defined(__aarch64__)
+	#define bpf_target_arm64
+#elif defined(__mips__)
+	#define bpf_target_mips
+#elif defined(__powerpc__)
+	#define bpf_target_powerpc
+#elif defined(__sparc__)
+	#define bpf_target_sparc
+#endif
+#endif
+
+#if defined(bpf_target_x86)
 
 #define PT_REGS_PARM1(x) ((x)->di)
 #define PT_REGS_PARM2(x) ((x)->si)
@@ -122,7 +162,7 @@ static int (*bpf_skb_change_head)(void *, int len, int flags) =
 #define PT_REGS_SP(x) ((x)->sp)
 #define PT_REGS_IP(x) ((x)->ip)
 
-#elif defined(__s390x__)
+#elif defined(bpf_target_s390x)
 
 #define PT_REGS_PARM1(x) ((x)->gprs[2])
 #define PT_REGS_PARM2(x) ((x)->gprs[3])
@@ -135,7 +175,7 @@ static int (*bpf_skb_change_head)(void *, int len, int flags) =
 #define PT_REGS_SP(x) ((x)->gprs[15])
 #define PT_REGS_IP(x) ((x)->psw.addr)
 
-#elif defined(__aarch64__)
+#elif defined(bpf_target_arm64)
 
 #define PT_REGS_PARM1(x) ((x)->regs[0])
 #define PT_REGS_PARM2(x) ((x)->regs[1])
@@ -148,7 +188,7 @@ static int (*bpf_skb_change_head)(void *, int len, int flags) =
 #define PT_REGS_SP(x) ((x)->sp)
 #define PT_REGS_IP(x) ((x)->pc)
 
-#elif defined(__mips__)
+#elif defined(bpf_target_mips)
 
 #define PT_REGS_PARM1(x) ((x)->regs[4])
 #define PT_REGS_PARM2(x) ((x)->regs[5])
@@ -161,7 +201,7 @@ static int (*bpf_skb_change_head)(void *, int len, int flags) =
 #define PT_REGS_SP(x) ((x)->regs[29])
 #define PT_REGS_IP(x) ((x)->cp0_epc)
 
-#elif defined(__powerpc__)
+#elif defined(bpf_target_powerpc)
 
 #define PT_REGS_PARM1(x) ((x)->gpr[3])
 #define PT_REGS_PARM2(x) ((x)->gpr[4])
@@ -172,7 +212,7 @@ static int (*bpf_skb_change_head)(void *, int len, int flags) =
 #define PT_REGS_SP(x) ((x)->sp)
 #define PT_REGS_IP(x) ((x)->nip)
 
-#elif defined(__sparc__)
+#elif defined(bpf_target_sparc)
 
 #define PT_REGS_PARM1(x) ((x)->u_regs[UREG_I0])
 #define PT_REGS_PARM2(x) ((x)->u_regs[UREG_I1])
@@ -182,6 +222,8 @@ static int (*bpf_skb_change_head)(void *, int len, int flags) =
 #define PT_REGS_RET(x) ((x)->u_regs[UREG_I7])
 #define PT_REGS_RC(x) ((x)->u_regs[UREG_I0])
 #define PT_REGS_SP(x) ((x)->u_regs[UREG_FP])
+
+/* Should this also be a bpf_target check for the sparc case? */
 #if defined(__arch64__)
 #define PT_REGS_IP(x) ((x)->tpc)
 #else
@@ -190,10 +232,10 @@ static int (*bpf_skb_change_head)(void *, int len, int flags) =
 
 #endif
 
-#ifdef __powerpc__
+#ifdef bpf_target_powerpc
 #define BPF_KPROBE_READ_RET_IP(ip, ctx)		({ (ip) = (ctx)->link; })
 #define BPF_KRETPROBE_READ_RET_IP		BPF_KPROBE_READ_RET_IP
-#elif defined(__sparc__)
+#elif bpf_target_sparc
 #define BPF_KPROBE_READ_RET_IP(ip, ctx)		({ (ip) = PT_REGS_RET(ctx); })
 #define BPF_KRETPROBE_READ_RET_IP		BPF_KPROBE_READ_RET_IP
 #else
-- 
2.14.1.821.g8fa685d3b7-goog

Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] samples/bpf: Fix pt_regs issues when cross-compiling

[Daniel Borkmann]

On 09/20/2017 06:11 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> BPF samples fail to build when cross-compiling for ARM64 because of incorrect
> pt_regs param selection. This is because clang defines __x86_64__ and
> bpf_headers thinks we're building for x86. Since clang is building for the BPF
> target, it shouldn't make assumptions about what target the BPF program is
> going to run on. To fix this, lets pass ARCH so the header knows which target
> the BPF program is being compiled for and can use the correct pt_regs code.
>
> Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>

Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>

[PATCH v4 4/4] samples/bpf: Add documentation on cross compilation

[Joel Fernandes]

Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
---
 samples/bpf/README.rst | 10 ++++++++++
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)

diff --git a/samples/bpf/README.rst b/samples/bpf/README.rst
index 79f9a58f1872..2b906127ef54 100644
--- a/samples/bpf/README.rst
+++ b/samples/bpf/README.rst
@@ -64,3 +64,13 @@ It is also possible to point make to the newly compiled 'llc' or
 'clang' command via redefining LLC or CLANG on the make command line::
 
  make samples/bpf/ LLC=~/git/llvm/build/bin/llc CLANG=~/git/llvm/build/bin/clang
+
+Cross compiling samples
+-----------------------
+Inorder to cross-compile, say for arm64 targets, export CROSS_COMPILE and ARCH
+environment variables before calling make. This will direct make to build
+samples for the cross target.
+
+export ARCH=arm64
+export CROSS_COMPILE="aarch64-linux-gnu-"
+make samples/bpf/ LLC=~/git/llvm/build/bin/llc CLANG=~/git/llvm/build/bin/clang
-- 
2.14.1.821.g8fa685d3b7-goog

Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] samples/bpf: Add documentation on cross compilation

[Randy Dunlap]

On 09/20/17 09:11, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
> ---
>  samples/bpf/README.rst | 10 ++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/samples/bpf/README.rst b/samples/bpf/README.rst
> index 79f9a58f1872..2b906127ef54 100644
> --- a/samples/bpf/README.rst
> +++ b/samples/bpf/README.rst
> @@ -64,3 +64,13 @@ It is also possible to point make to the newly compiled 'llc' or
>  'clang' command via redefining LLC or CLANG on the make command line::
>  
>   make samples/bpf/ LLC=~/git/llvm/build/bin/llc CLANG=~/git/llvm/build/bin/clang
> +
> +Cross compiling samples
> +-----------------------
> +Inorder to cross-compile, say for arm64 targets, export CROSS_COMPILE and ARCH

   In order to

> +environment variables before calling make. This will direct make to build
> +samples for the cross target.
> +
> +export ARCH=arm64
> +export CROSS_COMPILE="aarch64-linux-gnu-"
> +make samples/bpf/ LLC=~/git/llvm/build/bin/llc CLANG=~/git/llvm/build/bin/clang
> 


-- 
~Randy

Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] samples/bpf: Add documentation on cross compilation

[Daniel Borkmann]

On 09/20/2017 06:11 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>

(Minor typo pointed out by Randy, but rest looks fine.)

Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>

Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] samples/bpf: Use getppid instead of getpgrp for array map stress

[Daniel Borkmann]

On 09/20/2017 06:11 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> When cross-compiling the bpf sample map_perf_test for aarch64, I find that
> __NR_getpgrp is undefined. This causes build errors. This syscall is deprecated
> and requires defining __ARCH_WANT_SYSCALL_DEPRECATED. To avoid having to define
> that, just use a different syscall (getppid) for the array map stress test.
>
> Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>

Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>