Re: [PATCH RFC bpf-next 3/4] bpf/selftests: add tests to validate proper arguments alignment on ARM64

[Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>]

Alexis Lothoré <alexis.lothore@bootlin.com> writes:

[...]

>> The function listened to is defined as accepting 'struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_7',
>> at the same time this function uses 'struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_5'.
>
> That's not an accidental mistake, those are in fact the same definition.
> bpf_testmod_struct_arg_7 is the kernel side definition in bpf_testmod.c:
>
> struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_7 {
> 	__int128 a;
> };
>
> and struct bpf_testmode_struct_arg_5 is the one defined in the bpf test
> program:
>
> struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_5 {
> 	__int128 a;
> };

Apologies, but I'm still confused:
- I apply this series on top of:
  224ee86639f5 ("Merge git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf after rc4")

- line 12 of tracing_struct_many_args.c has the following definition:

  struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_5 {
         char a;
         short b;
         int c;
         long d;
  };

- line 135 of the same file has the following definition:

   SEC("fentry/bpf_testmod_test_struct_arg_11")
   int BPF_PROG2(test_struct_many_args_9, struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_5, a,
                 struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_5, b,
                 struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_5, c,
                 struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_5, d, int, e,
                 struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_5, f)

- line 70 of tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c:

   struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_7 {
         __int128 a;
   };

- line 152 of the same file:

  noinline int bpf_testmod_test_struct_arg_11(struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_7 a,
                                              struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_7 b,
                                              struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_7 c,
                                              struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_7 d,
                                              short e,
                                              struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_7 f)

Do I use a wrong base to apply the series?

[...]

>> Nevertheless, the assertion persists even with correct types.
>
> So I digged a bit further to better share my observations here. This is the
> function stack when entering the trampoline after having triggered the
> target function execution:
>
> (gdb) x/64b $rbp+0x18
> 0xffffc9000015fd60:     41      0       0       0       0       0       0       0
> 0xffffc9000015fd68:     0       0       0       0       0       0       0       0
> 0xffffc9000015fd70:     42      0       0       0       0       0       0       0
> 0xffffc9000015fd78:     35      0       0       0       0       0       0       0
> 0xffffc9000015fd80:     43      0       0       0       0       0       0       0
> 0xffffc9000015fd88:     0       0       0       0       0       0       0       0
>
> We see the arguments that did not fit in registers, so d, e and f.
>
> This is the ebpf context generated by the trampoline for the fentry
> program, from the content of the stack above + the registers:
>
> (gdb) x/128b $rbp-60
> 0xffffc9000015fce8:     38      0       0       0       0       0       0       0
> 0xffffc9000015fcf0:     0       0       0       0       0       0       0       0
> 0xffffc9000015fcf8:     39      0       0       0       0       0       0       0
> 0xffffc9000015fd00:     0       0       0       0       0       0       0       0
> 0xffffc9000015fd08:     40      0       0       0       0       0       0       0
> 0xffffc9000015fd10:     0       0       0       0       0       0       0       0
> 0xffffc9000015fd18:     41      0       0       0       0       0       0       0
> 0xffffc9000015fd20:     0       0       0       0       0       0       0       0
> 0xffffc9000015fd28:     42      0       0       0       0       0       0       0
> 0xffffc9000015fd30:     35      0       0       0       0       0       0       0
> 0xffffc9000015fd38:     43      0       0       0       0       0       0       0
> 0xffffc9000015fd40:     37      0       0       0       0       0       0       0
>
> So IIUC, this is wrong because the "e" variable in the bpf program being
> an int (and about to receive value 42), it occupies only 1 "tracing context
> 8-byte slot", so the value 43 (representing the content for variable f),
> should be right after it, at 0xffffc9000015fd30. What we have instead is a
> hole, very likely because we copied silently the alignment from the
> original function call (and I guess this 35 value is a remnant from the
> previous test, which uses values from 27 to 37)

Interesting, thank you for the print outs.

> Regardless of this issue, based on discussion from last week, I think I'll
> go for the implementation suggested by Alexei: handling the nominal cases,
> and detecting and blocking the non trivial cases (eg: structs passed on
> stack). It sounds reasonable as there seems to be no exisiting kernel
> function currently able to trigger those very specific cases, so it could
> be added later if this changes.

Yes, this makes sense.