BPF List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
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, Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v3 3/8] libbpf: Handle <orig_name>.llvm.<hash> symbol properly
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:14:58 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240326041458.1198161-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240326041443.1197498-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev>

With CONFIG_LTO_CLANG_THIN enabled, with some of previous
version of kernel code base ([1]), I hit the following
error:
   test_ksyms:PASS:kallsyms_fopen 0 nsec
   test_ksyms:FAIL:ksym_find symbol 'bpf_link_fops' not found
   #118     ksyms:FAIL

The reason is that 'bpf_link_fops' is renamed to
   bpf_link_fops.llvm.8325593422554671469
Due to cross-file inlining, the static variable 'bpf_link_fops'
in syscall.c is used by a function in another file. To avoid
potential duplicated names, the llvm added suffix
'.llvm.<hash>' ([2]) to 'bpf_link_fops' variable.
Such renaming caused a problem in libbpf if 'bpf_link_fops'
is used in bpf prog as a ksym but 'bpf_link_fops' does not
match any symbol in /proc/kallsyms.

To fix this issue, libbpf needs to understand that suffix '.llvm.<hash>'
is caused by clang lto kernel and to process such symbols properly.

With latest bpf-next code base built with CONFIG_LTO_CLANG_THIN,
I cannot reproduce the above failure any more. But such an issue
could happen with other symbols or in the future for bpf_link_fops symbol.

For example, with my current kernel, I got the following from
/proc/kallsyms:
  ffffffff84782154 d __func__.net_ratelimit.llvm.6135436931166841955
  ffffffff85f0a500 d tk_core.llvm.726630847145216431
  ffffffff85fdb960 d __fs_reclaim_map.llvm.10487989720912350772
  ffffffff864c7300 d fake_dst_ops.llvm.54750082607048300

I could not easily create a selftest to test newly-added
libbpf functionality with a static C test since I do not know
which symbol is cross-file inlined. But based on my particular kernel,
the following test change can run successfully.

>  diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ksyms.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ksyms.c
>  index 6a86d1f07800..904a103f7b1d 100644
>  --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ksyms.c
>  +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ksyms.c
>  @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ void test_ksyms(void)
>          ASSERT_EQ(data->out__bpf_link_fops, link_fops_addr, "bpf_link_fops");
>          ASSERT_EQ(data->out__bpf_link_fops1, 0, "bpf_link_fops1");
>          ASSERT_EQ(data->out__btf_size, btf_size, "btf_size");
>  +       ASSERT_NEQ(data->out__fake_dst_ops, 0, "fake_dst_ops");
>          ASSERT_EQ(data->out__per_cpu_start, per_cpu_start_addr, "__per_cpu_start");
>
>   cleanup:
>  diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_ksyms.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_ksyms.c
>  index 6c9cbb5a3bdf..fe91eef54b66 100644
>  --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_ksyms.c
>  +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_ksyms.c
>  @@ -9,11 +9,13 @@ __u64 out__bpf_link_fops = -1;
>   __u64 out__bpf_link_fops1 = -1;
>   __u64 out__btf_size = -1;
>   __u64 out__per_cpu_start = -1;
>  +__u64 out__fake_dst_ops = -1;
>
>   extern const void bpf_link_fops __ksym;
>   extern const void __start_BTF __ksym;
>   extern const void __stop_BTF __ksym;
>   extern const void __per_cpu_start __ksym;
>  +extern const void fake_dst_ops __ksym;
>   /* non-existing symbol, weak, default to zero */
>   extern const void bpf_link_fops1 __ksym __weak;
>
>  @@ -23,6 +25,7 @@ int handler(const void *ctx)
>          out__bpf_link_fops = (__u64)&bpf_link_fops;
>          out__btf_size = (__u64)(&__stop_BTF - &__start_BTF);
>          out__per_cpu_start = (__u64)&__per_cpu_start;
>  +       out__fake_dst_ops = (__u64)&fake_dst_ops;
>
>          out__bpf_link_fops1 = (__u64)&bpf_link_fops1;

This patch fixed the issue in libbpf such that
the suffix '.llvm.<hash>' will be ignored during comparison of
bpf prog ksym vs. symbols in /proc/kallsyms, this resolved the issue.
Currently, only static variables in /proc/kallsyms are checked
with '.llvm.<hash>' suffix since in bpf programs function ksyms
with '.llvm.<hash>' suffix are most likely kfunc's and unlikely
to be cross-file inlined.

Note that currently kernel does not support gcc build with lto.

  [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240302165017.1627295-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev/
  [2] https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/release/18.x/llvm/include/llvm/IR/ModuleSummaryIndex.h#L1714-L1719

Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
---
 tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
index 1f5581b9d11b..370818849e37 100644
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
@@ -1966,6 +1966,20 @@ static struct extern_desc *find_extern_by_name(const struct bpf_object *obj,
 	return NULL;
 }
 
+static struct extern_desc *find_extern_by_name_with_len(const struct bpf_object *obj,
+							const void *name, int len)
+{
+	const char *ext_name;
+	int i;
+
+	for (i = 0; i < obj->nr_extern; i++) {
+		ext_name = obj->externs[i].name;
+		if (strlen(ext_name) == len && strncmp(ext_name, name, len) == 0)
+			return &obj->externs[i];
+	}
+	return NULL;
+}
+
 static int set_kcfg_value_tri(struct extern_desc *ext, void *ext_val,
 			      char value)
 {
@@ -8025,8 +8039,13 @@ static int kallsyms_cb(unsigned long long sym_addr, char sym_type,
 	struct bpf_object *obj = ctx;
 	const struct btf_type *t;
 	struct extern_desc *ext;
+	char *res;
 
-	ext = find_extern_by_name(obj, sym_name);
+	res = strstr(sym_name, ".llvm.");
+	if (sym_type == 'd' && res)
+		ext = find_extern_by_name_with_len(obj, sym_name, res - sym_name);
+	else
+		ext = find_extern_by_name(obj, sym_name);
 	if (!ext || ext->type != EXT_KSYM)
 		return 0;
 
-- 
2.43.0


  parent reply	other threads:[~2024-03-26  4:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-03-26  4:14 [PATCH bpf-next v3 0/8] bpf: Fix a couple of test failures with LTO kernel Yonghong Song
2024-03-26  4:14 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/8] selftests/bpf: Replace CHECK with ASSERT macros for ksyms test Yonghong Song
2024-03-26  4:14 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 2/8] libbpf: Mark libbpf_kallsyms_parse static function Yonghong Song
2024-03-26  4:14 ` Yonghong Song [this message]
2024-03-26  4:15 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 4/8] selftests/bpf: Refactor some functions for kprobe_multi_test Yonghong Song
2024-03-26  4:15 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 5/8] selftests/bpf: Refactor trace helper func load_kallsyms_local() Yonghong Song
2024-03-26  4:15 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 6/8] selftests/bpf: Add {load,search}_kallsyms_custom_local() Yonghong Song
2024-03-26  4:15 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 7/8] selftests/bpf: Fix kprobe_multi_bench_attach test failure with LTO kernel Yonghong Song
2024-03-26  4:15 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 8/8] selftests/bpf: Add a kprobe_multi subtest to use addrs instead of syms Yonghong Song
2024-03-28  2:00 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 0/8] bpf: Fix a couple of test failures with LTO kernel patchwork-bot+netdevbpf

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=20240326041458.1198161-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev \
    --to=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
    --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@kernel.org \
    /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