Re: [PATCH net v2] bpf: Fix build when CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL is disabled

[Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@intel.com>]

Hi Kartikeya,

Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com> writes:

> On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 05:21:53AM IST, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
>> Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> >> Thanks for the fix.
>> >>
>> >> But instead of moving this to core.c, you can probably make the btf.h
>> >> declaration conditional on CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL, since this is not useful in
>> >> isolation (only used by verifier for module kfunc support). For the case of
>> >> kfunc_btf_id_list variables, just define it as an empty struct and static
>> >> variables, since the definition is still inside btf.c. So it becomes a noop for
>> >> !CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL.
>> >>
>> >> I am also not sure whether BTF is useful without BPF support, but maybe I'm
>> >> missing some usecase.
>> >
>> > Unlikely. I would just disallow such config instead of sprinkling
>> > the code with ifdefs.
>>
>> Is something like this what you have in mind?
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug
>> index 6fdbf9613aec..eae860c86e26 100644
>> --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug
>> +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug
>> @@ -316,6 +316,7 @@ config DEBUG_INFO_BTF
>>  	bool "Generate BTF typeinfo"
>>  	depends on !DEBUG_INFO_SPLIT && !DEBUG_INFO_REDUCED
>>  	depends on !GCC_PLUGIN_RANDSTRUCT || COMPILE_TEST
>> +	depends on BPF_SYSCALL
>>  	help
>>  	  Generate deduplicated BTF type information from DWARF debug info.
>>  	  Turning this on expects presence of pahole tool, which will convert
>>
>>
>
> BTW, you will need a little more than that, I suspect the compiler optimizes out
> the register/unregister call so we don't see a build failure, but adding a side
> effect gives me errors, so something like this should resolve the problem (since
> kfunc_btf_id_list variable definition is behind CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL).
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/btf.h b/include/linux/btf.h
> index 203eef993d76..e9881ef9e9aa 100644
> --- a/include/linux/btf.h
> +++ b/include/linux/btf.h
> @@ -254,6 +254,8 @@ void unregister_kfunc_btf_id_set(struct kfunc_btf_id_list *l,
>                                  struct kfunc_btf_id_set *s);
>  bool bpf_check_mod_kfunc_call(struct kfunc_btf_id_list *klist, u32 kfunc_id,
>                               struct module *owner);
> +extern struct kfunc_btf_id_list bpf_tcp_ca_kfunc_list;
> +extern struct kfunc_btf_id_list prog_test_kfunc_list;
>  #else
>  static inline void register_kfunc_btf_id_set(struct kfunc_btf_id_list *l,
>                                              struct kfunc_btf_id_set *s)
> @@ -268,13 +270,13 @@ static inline bool bpf_check_mod_kfunc_call(struct kfunc_btf_id_list *klist,
>  {
>         return false;
>  }
> +struct kfunc_btf_id_list {};
> +static struct kfunc_btf_id_list bpf_tcp_ca_kfunc_list __maybe_unused;
> +static struct kfunc_btf_id_list prog_test_kfunc_list __maybe_unused;
> +
>  #endif
>
>  #define DEFINE_KFUNC_BTF_ID_SET(set, name)                                     \
>         struct kfunc_btf_id_set name = { LIST_HEAD_INIT(name.list), (set),     \
>                                          THIS_MODULE }
> -
> -extern struct kfunc_btf_id_list bpf_tcp_ca_kfunc_list;
> -extern struct kfunc_btf_id_list prog_test_kfunc_list;
> -
>  #endif
>

I could not reproduce the build failure here even when adding some side
effects, but I didn't try very hard.

As you are more familiar with the code, I would be glad if you could
take it from here and propose a patch.


Cheers,
-- 
Vinicius