BPF List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
To: <bpf@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>, <kernel-team@fb.com>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next 02/12] libbpf: Permit 64bit relocation value
Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 12:00:12 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220501190012.2577087-1-yhs@fb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220501190002.2576452-1-yhs@fb.com>

Currently, the libbpf limits the relocation value to be 32bit
since all current relocations have such a limit. But with
BTF_KIND_ENUM64 support, the enum value could be 64bit.
So let us permit 64bit relocation value in libbpf.

Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
---
 tools/lib/bpf/relo_core.c | 24 ++++++++++++------------
 tools/lib/bpf/relo_core.h |  4 ++--
 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/relo_core.c b/tools/lib/bpf/relo_core.c
index ba4453dfd1ed..2ed94daabbe5 100644
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/relo_core.c
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/relo_core.c
@@ -583,7 +583,7 @@ static int bpf_core_spec_match(struct bpf_core_spec *local_spec,
 static int bpf_core_calc_field_relo(const char *prog_name,
 				    const struct bpf_core_relo *relo,
 				    const struct bpf_core_spec *spec,
-				    __u32 *val, __u32 *field_sz, __u32 *type_id,
+				    __u64 *val, __u32 *field_sz, __u32 *type_id,
 				    bool *validate)
 {
 	const struct bpf_core_accessor *acc;
@@ -708,7 +708,7 @@ static int bpf_core_calc_field_relo(const char *prog_name,
 
 static int bpf_core_calc_type_relo(const struct bpf_core_relo *relo,
 				   const struct bpf_core_spec *spec,
-				   __u32 *val, bool *validate)
+				   __u64 *val, bool *validate)
 {
 	__s64 sz;
 
@@ -751,7 +751,7 @@ static int bpf_core_calc_type_relo(const struct bpf_core_relo *relo,
 
 static int bpf_core_calc_enumval_relo(const struct bpf_core_relo *relo,
 				      const struct bpf_core_spec *spec,
-				      __u32 *val)
+				      __u64 *val)
 {
 	const struct btf_type *t;
 	const struct btf_enum *e;
@@ -929,7 +929,7 @@ int bpf_core_patch_insn(const char *prog_name, struct bpf_insn *insn,
 			int insn_idx, const struct bpf_core_relo *relo,
 			int relo_idx, const struct bpf_core_relo_res *res)
 {
-	__u32 orig_val, new_val;
+	__u64 orig_val, new_val;
 	__u8 class;
 
 	class = BPF_CLASS(insn->code);
@@ -954,14 +954,14 @@ int bpf_core_patch_insn(const char *prog_name, struct bpf_insn *insn,
 		if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) != BPF_K)
 			return -EINVAL;
 		if (res->validate && insn->imm != orig_val) {
-			pr_warn("prog '%s': relo #%d: unexpected insn #%d (ALU/ALU64) value: got %u, exp %u -> %u\n",
+			pr_warn("prog '%s': relo #%d: unexpected insn #%d (ALU/ALU64) value: got %u, exp %llu -> %llu\n",
 				prog_name, relo_idx,
 				insn_idx, insn->imm, orig_val, new_val);
 			return -EINVAL;
 		}
 		orig_val = insn->imm;
 		insn->imm = new_val;
-		pr_debug("prog '%s': relo #%d: patched insn #%d (ALU/ALU64) imm %u -> %u\n",
+		pr_debug("prog '%s': relo #%d: patched insn #%d (ALU/ALU64) imm %llu -> %llu\n",
 			 prog_name, relo_idx, insn_idx,
 			 orig_val, new_val);
 		break;
@@ -969,12 +969,12 @@ int bpf_core_patch_insn(const char *prog_name, struct bpf_insn *insn,
 	case BPF_ST:
 	case BPF_STX:
 		if (res->validate && insn->off != orig_val) {
-			pr_warn("prog '%s': relo #%d: unexpected insn #%d (LDX/ST/STX) value: got %u, exp %u -> %u\n",
+			pr_warn("prog '%s': relo #%d: unexpected insn #%d (LDX/ST/STX) value: got %u, exp %llu -> %llu\n",
 				prog_name, relo_idx, insn_idx, insn->off, orig_val, new_val);
 			return -EINVAL;
 		}
 		if (new_val > SHRT_MAX) {
-			pr_warn("prog '%s': relo #%d: insn #%d (LDX/ST/STX) value too big: %u\n",
+			pr_warn("prog '%s': relo #%d: insn #%d (LDX/ST/STX) value too big: %llu\n",
 				prog_name, relo_idx, insn_idx, new_val);
 			return -ERANGE;
 		}
@@ -987,7 +987,7 @@ int bpf_core_patch_insn(const char *prog_name, struct bpf_insn *insn,
 
 		orig_val = insn->off;
 		insn->off = new_val;
-		pr_debug("prog '%s': relo #%d: patched insn #%d (LDX/ST/STX) off %u -> %u\n",
+		pr_debug("prog '%s': relo #%d: patched insn #%d (LDX/ST/STX) off %llu -> %llu\n",
 			 prog_name, relo_idx, insn_idx, orig_val, new_val);
 
 		if (res->new_sz != res->orig_sz) {
@@ -1026,7 +1026,7 @@ int bpf_core_patch_insn(const char *prog_name, struct bpf_insn *insn,
 
 		imm = insn[0].imm + ((__u64)insn[1].imm << 32);
 		if (res->validate && imm != orig_val) {
-			pr_warn("prog '%s': relo #%d: unexpected insn #%d (LDIMM64) value: got %llu, exp %u -> %u\n",
+			pr_warn("prog '%s': relo #%d: unexpected insn #%d (LDIMM64) value: got %llu, exp %llu -> %llu\n",
 				prog_name, relo_idx,
 				insn_idx, (unsigned long long)imm,
 				orig_val, new_val);
@@ -1035,7 +1035,7 @@ int bpf_core_patch_insn(const char *prog_name, struct bpf_insn *insn,
 
 		insn[0].imm = new_val;
 		insn[1].imm = 0; /* currently only 32-bit values are supported */
-		pr_debug("prog '%s': relo #%d: patched insn #%d (LDIMM64) imm64 %llu -> %u\n",
+		pr_debug("prog '%s': relo #%d: patched insn #%d (LDIMM64) imm64 %llu -> %llu\n",
 			 prog_name, relo_idx, insn_idx,
 			 (unsigned long long)imm, new_val);
 		break;
@@ -1261,7 +1261,7 @@ int bpf_core_calc_relo_insn(const char *prog_name,
 			 * decision and value, otherwise it's dangerous to
 			 * proceed due to ambiguity
 			 */
-			pr_warn("prog '%s': relo #%d: relocation decision ambiguity: %s %u != %s %u\n",
+			pr_warn("prog '%s': relo #%d: relocation decision ambiguity: %s %llu != %s %llu\n",
 				prog_name, relo_idx,
 				cand_res.poison ? "failure" : "success", cand_res.new_val,
 				targ_res->poison ? "failure" : "success", targ_res->new_val);
diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/relo_core.h b/tools/lib/bpf/relo_core.h
index 073039d8ca4f..7df0da082f2c 100644
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/relo_core.h
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/relo_core.h
@@ -46,9 +46,9 @@ struct bpf_core_spec {
 
 struct bpf_core_relo_res {
 	/* expected value in the instruction, unless validate == false */
-	__u32 orig_val;
+	__u64 orig_val;
 	/* new value that needs to be patched up to */
-	__u32 new_val;
+	__u64 new_val;
 	/* relocation unsuccessful, poison instruction, but don't fail load */
 	bool poison;
 	/* some relocations can't be validated against orig_val */
-- 
2.30.2


  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-05-01 19:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-05-01 19:00 [PATCH bpf-next 00/12] bpf: Add 64bit enum value support Yonghong Song
2022-05-01 19:00 ` [PATCH bpf-next 01/12] bpf: Add btf enum64 support Yonghong Song
2022-05-09  0:33   ` Dave Marchevsky
2022-05-09 22:29   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-05-10 22:06     ` Yonghong Song
2022-05-10 23:18       ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-05-11  0:17         ` Yonghong Song
2022-05-01 19:00 ` Yonghong Song [this message]
2022-05-09  1:06   ` [PATCH bpf-next 02/12] libbpf: Permit 64bit relocation value Dave Marchevsky
2022-05-10 19:35     ` Yonghong Song
2022-05-09 22:37   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-05-10 22:14     ` Yonghong Song
2022-05-10 23:19       ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-05-01 19:00 ` [PATCH bpf-next 03/12] libbpf: Fix an error in 64bit relocation value computation Yonghong Song
2022-05-09  0:55   ` Dave Marchevsky
2022-05-09  0:56     ` Dave Marchevsky
2022-05-09 22:37   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-05-10 22:11     ` Yonghong Song
2022-05-01 19:00 ` [PATCH bpf-next 04/12] libbpf: Add btf enum64 support Yonghong Song
2022-05-03 17:22   ` kernel test robot
2022-05-05 22:44     ` Yonghong Song
2022-05-09 23:25   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-05-10 22:40     ` Yonghong Song
2022-05-10 23:02       ` Yonghong Song
2022-05-10 23:40         ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-05-10 23:38       ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-05-11  0:39         ` Yonghong Song
2022-05-11 17:43           ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-05-11 18:56             ` Yonghong Song
2022-05-01 19:00 ` [PATCH bpf-next 05/12] bpftool: " Yonghong Song
2022-05-09 23:31   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-05-10 22:43     ` Yonghong Song
2022-05-01 19:00 ` [PATCH bpf-next 06/12] selftests/bpf: Fix selftests failure Yonghong Song
2022-05-09  2:21   ` Dave Marchevsky
2022-05-10 19:40     ` Yonghong Song
2022-05-09 23:34   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-05-10 22:44     ` Yonghong Song
2022-05-01 19:00 ` [PATCH bpf-next 07/12] selftests/bpf: Test new libbpf enum32/enum64 API functions Yonghong Song
2022-05-01 19:00 ` [PATCH bpf-next 08/12] selftests/bpf: Add BTF_KIND_ENUM64 unit tests Yonghong Song
2022-05-01 19:00 ` [PATCH bpf-next 09/12] selftests/bpf: Test BTF_KIND_ENUM64 for deduplication Yonghong Song
2022-05-09 23:37   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-05-10 22:44     ` Yonghong Song
2022-05-01 19:00 ` [PATCH bpf-next 10/12] selftests/bpf: add a test for enum64 value relocation Yonghong Song
2022-05-09 23:38   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-05-10 22:45     ` Yonghong Song
2022-05-01 19:00 ` [PATCH bpf-next 11/12] selftests/bpf: Clarify llvm dependency with possible selftest failures Yonghong Song
2022-05-01 19:01 ` [PATCH bpf-next 12/12] docs/bpf: Update documentation for BTF_KIND_ENUM64 support Yonghong Song

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=20220501190012.2577087-1-yhs@fb.com \
    --to=yhs@fb.com \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox