From: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
To: Kui-Feng Lee <thinker.li@gmail.com>,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, martin.lau@linux.dev,
song@kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com, andrii@kernel.org
Cc: sinquersw@gmail.com, kuifeng@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 06/11] bpf: Find btf_field with the knowledge of arrays.
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 01:14:10 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3ccb7e3c1b71bfe63606565d0a1b418876b45535.camel@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240410004150.2917641-7-thinker.li@gmail.com>
On Tue, 2024-04-09 at 17:41 -0700, Kui-Feng Lee wrote:
> Make btf_record_find() find the btf_field for an offset by comparing the
> offset with the offset of each element, rather than the offset of the
> entire array, if a btf_field represents an array. It is important to have
> support for btf_field arrays in the future.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kui-Feng Lee <thinker.li@gmail.com>
> ---
> kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 19 +++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> index 543ff0d944e8..1a37731e632a 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> @@ -516,11 +516,18 @@ int bpf_map_alloc_pages(const struct bpf_map *map, gfp_t gfp, int nid,
> static int btf_field_cmp(const void *a, const void *b)
> {
> const struct btf_field *f1 = a, *f2 = b;
> + int gt = 1, lt = -1;
>
> + if (f2->nelems == 0) {
> + swap(f1, f2);
> + swap(gt, lt);
> + }
> if (f1->offset < f2->offset)
> - return -1;
> - else if (f1->offset > f2->offset)
> - return 1;
> + return lt;
> + else if (f1->offset >= f2->offset + f2->size)
> + return gt;
> + if ((f1->offset - f2->offset) % (f2->size / f2->nelems))
> + return gt;
Binary search requires elements to be sorted in non-decreasing order,
however usage of '%' breaks this requirement. E.g. consider an array
with element size equal to 3:
| elem #0 | elem #1 |
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
^ ^ ^
' ' '
f2 f1 f1'
Here f1 > f2, but f1' == f2, while f1' > f1.
Depending on whether or not fields can overlap this might not be a problem,
but I suggest to rework the comparison function to avoid this confusion.
(E.g., find the leftmost field that overlaps with offset being searched for).
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -528,10 +535,14 @@ struct btf_field *btf_record_find(const struct btf_record *rec, u32 offset,
> u32 field_mask)
> {
> struct btf_field *field;
> + struct btf_field key = {
> + .offset = offset,
> + .size = 0, /* as a label for this key */
> + };
>
> if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(rec) || !(rec->field_mask & field_mask))
> return NULL;
> - field = bsearch(&offset, rec->fields, rec->cnt, sizeof(rec->fields[0]), btf_field_cmp);
> + field = bsearch(&key, rec->fields, rec->cnt, sizeof(rec->fields[0]), btf_field_cmp);
> if (!field || !(field->type & field_mask))
> return NULL;
> return field;
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-11 22:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-10 0:41 [PATCH bpf-next 00/11] Enable BPF programs to declare arrays of kptr, bpf_rb_root, and bpf_list_head Kui-Feng Lee
2024-04-10 0:41 ` [PATCH bpf-next 01/11] bpf: Remove unnecessary checks on the offset of btf_field Kui-Feng Lee
2024-04-11 22:12 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-04-10 0:41 ` [PATCH bpf-next 02/11] bpf: Remove unnecessary call to btf_field_type_size() Kui-Feng Lee
2024-04-11 22:12 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-04-10 0:41 ` [PATCH bpf-next 03/11] bpf: Add nelems to struct btf_field_info and btf_field Kui-Feng Lee
2024-04-10 0:41 ` [PATCH bpf-next 04/11] bpf: check_map_kptr_access() compute the offset from the reg state Kui-Feng Lee
2024-04-11 22:13 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-04-12 4:00 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2024-04-10 0:41 ` [PATCH bpf-next 05/11] bpf: initialize/free array of btf_field(s) Kui-Feng Lee
2024-04-11 22:13 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-04-12 3:56 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2024-04-12 15:32 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-04-12 17:00 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2024-04-10 0:41 ` [PATCH bpf-next 06/11] bpf: Find btf_field with the knowledge of arrays Kui-Feng Lee
2024-04-11 22:14 ` Eduard Zingerman [this message]
2024-04-12 2:00 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2024-04-10 0:41 ` [PATCH bpf-next 07/11] bpf: check_map_access() " Kui-Feng Lee
2024-04-11 22:14 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-04-12 16:32 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2024-04-12 19:08 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-04-12 19:29 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2024-04-12 19:50 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-04-10 0:41 ` [PATCH bpf-next 08/11] bpf: Enable and verify btf_field arrays Kui-Feng Lee
2024-04-10 0:41 ` [PATCH bpf-next 09/11] selftests/bpf: Test global kptr arrays Kui-Feng Lee
2024-04-10 0:41 ` [PATCH bpf-next 10/11] selftests/bpf: Test global bpf_rb_root arrays Kui-Feng Lee
2024-04-10 0:41 ` [PATCH bpf-next 11/11] selftests/bpf: Test global bpf_list_head arrays Kui-Feng Lee
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=3ccb7e3c1b71bfe63606565d0a1b418876b45535.camel@gmail.com \
--to=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=kuifeng@meta.com \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=sinquersw@gmail.com \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=thinker.li@gmail.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