From: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org
Cc: andrii@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, martin.lau@linux.dev,
kernel-team@fb.com, yonghong.song@linux.dev, void@manifault.com,
sinquersw@gmail.com, Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v2 02/15] libbpf: tie struct_ops programs to kernel BTF ids, not to local ids
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2024 03:19:07 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240302011920.15302-3-eddyz87@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240302011920.15302-1-eddyz87@gmail.com>
Enforce the following existing limitation on struct_ops programs based
on kernel BTF id instead of program-local BTF id:
struct_ops BPF prog can be re-used between multiple .struct_ops &
.struct_ops.link as long as it's the same struct_ops struct
definition and the same function pointer field
This allows reusing same BPF program for versioned struct_ops map
definitions, e.g.:
SEC("struct_ops/test")
int BPF_PROG(foo) { ... }
struct some_ops___v1 { int (*test)(void); };
struct some_ops___v2 { int (*test)(void); };
SEC(".struct_ops.link") struct some_ops___v1 a = { .test = foo }
SEC(".struct_ops.link") struct some_ops___v2 b = { .test = foo }
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
---
tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
index e2a4c409980b..2c0cb72bc7a4 100644
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
@@ -1146,8 +1146,32 @@ static int bpf_map__init_kern_struct_ops(struct bpf_map *map)
if (mod_btf)
prog->attach_btf_obj_fd = mod_btf->fd;
- prog->attach_btf_id = kern_type_id;
- prog->expected_attach_type = kern_member_idx;
+
+ /* if we haven't yet processed this BPF program, record proper
+ * attach_btf_id and member_idx
+ */
+ if (!prog->attach_btf_id) {
+ prog->attach_btf_id = kern_type_id;
+ prog->expected_attach_type = kern_member_idx;
+ }
+
+ /* struct_ops BPF prog can be re-used between multiple
+ * .struct_ops & .struct_ops.link as long as it's the
+ * same struct_ops struct definition and the same
+ * function pointer field
+ */
+ if (prog->attach_btf_id != kern_type_id) {
+ pr_warn("struct_ops init_kern %s func ptr %s: invalid reuse of prog %s in sec %s with type %u: attach_btf_id %u != kern_type_id %u\n",
+ map->name, mname, prog->name, prog->sec_name, prog->type,
+ prog->attach_btf_id, kern_type_id);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+ if (prog->expected_attach_type != kern_member_idx) {
+ pr_warn("struct_ops init_kern %s func ptr %s: invalid reuse of prog %s in sec %s with type %u: expected_attach_type %u != kern_member_idx %u\n",
+ map->name, mname, prog->name, prog->sec_name, prog->type,
+ prog->expected_attach_type, kern_member_idx);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
st_ops->kern_func_off[i] = kern_data_off + kern_moff;
@@ -9428,27 +9452,6 @@ static int bpf_object__collect_st_ops_relos(struct bpf_object *obj,
return -EINVAL;
}
- /* if we haven't yet processed this BPF program, record proper
- * attach_btf_id and member_idx
- */
- if (!prog->attach_btf_id) {
- prog->attach_btf_id = st_ops->type_id;
- prog->expected_attach_type = member_idx;
- }
-
- /* struct_ops BPF prog can be re-used between multiple
- * .struct_ops & .struct_ops.link as long as it's the
- * same struct_ops struct definition and the same
- * function pointer field
- */
- if (prog->attach_btf_id != st_ops->type_id ||
- prog->expected_attach_type != member_idx) {
- pr_warn("struct_ops reloc %s: cannot use prog %s in sec %s with type %u attach_btf_id %u expected_attach_type %u for func ptr %s\n",
- map->name, prog->name, prog->sec_name, prog->type,
- prog->attach_btf_id, prog->expected_attach_type, name);
- return -EINVAL;
- }
-
st_ops->progs[member_idx] = prog;
/* st_ops->data will be exposed to users, being returned by
--
2.43.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-02 1:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-02 1:19 [PATCH bpf-next v2 00/15] libbpf: type suffixes and autocreate flag for struct_ops maps Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 01/15] libbpf: allow version suffixes (___smth) for struct_ops types Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` Eduard Zingerman [this message]
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 03/15] libbpf: honor autocreate flag for struct_ops maps Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 04/15] selftests/bpf: test struct_ops map definition with type suffix Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 05/15] selftests/bpf: utility functions to capture libbpf log in test_progs Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 06/15] selftests/bpf: bad_struct_ops test Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 07/15] selftests/bpf: test autocreate behavior for struct_ops maps Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 08/15] libbpf: sync progs autoload with maps autocreate " Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-04 19:13 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 09/15] selftests/bpf: verify struct_ops autoload/autocreate sync Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 10/15] libbpf: replace elf_state->st_ops_* fields with SEC_ST_OPS sec_type Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 11/15] libbpf: struct_ops in SEC("?.struct_ops") and SEC("?.struct_ops.link") Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 12/15] libbpf: rewrite btf datasec names starting from '?' Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 13/15] selftests/bpf: test case for SEC("?.struct_ops") Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 14/15] bpf: allow '?' at the beginning of DATASEC names Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 15/15] selftests/bpf: test cases for '?' in BTF names Eduard Zingerman
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=20240302011920.15302-3-eddyz87@gmail.com \
--to=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=sinquersw@gmail.com \
--cc=void@manifault.com \
--cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
/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