From: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Cc: bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Kernel Team <kernel-team@fb.com>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/5] libbpf: Handle <orig_name>.llvm.<hash> symbol properly
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 16:55:21 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <559d9eb6-9832-4947-8d32-9be84c217659@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAADnVQL3yAnS4+A59OBmpbhEhQx7Was-EnTcLW9k4ddnXQi31w@mail.gmail.com>
On 3/21/24 2:54 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 1:01 PM Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev> wrote:
>> 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 as '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.
>>
>> 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 if clang lto kernel
>> is enabled and the symbol resolution is for ksym's,
>> the suffix '.llvm.<hash>' will be ignored during comparison of
>> bpf prog ksym vs. symbols in /proc/kallsyms, this resolved the issue.
>>
>> 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 | 64 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 63 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
>> index a7a89269148c..8c3861192bc8 100644
>> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
>> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
>> @@ -664,6 +664,7 @@ struct bpf_object {
>> bool loaded;
>> bool has_subcalls;
>> bool has_rodata;
>> + bool need_kallsyms;
>>
>> struct bpf_gen *gen_loader;
>>
>> @@ -8016,14 +8017,73 @@ static int libbpf_kallsyms_parse(kallsyms_cb_t cb, void *ctx)
>> return err;
>> }
>>
>> +static int check_lto_kernel(void)
>> +{
>> + static int check_lto = 2;
>> + char buf[PATH_MAX];
>> + struct utsname uts;
>> + gzFile file;
>> + int len;
>> +
>> + if (check_lto != 2)
>> + return check_lto;
>> +
>> + uname(&uts);
>> + len = snprintf(buf, PATH_MAX, "/boot/config-%s", uts.release);
>> + if (len < 0) {
>> + check_lto = -EINVAL;
>> + goto out;
>> + } else if (len >= PATH_MAX) {
>> + check_lto = -ENAMETOOLONG;
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>> +
>> + /* gzopen also accepts uncompressed files. */
>> + file = gzopen(buf, "re");
>> + if (!file)
>> + file = gzopen("/proc/config.gz", "re");
>> +
>> + if (!file) {
>> + check_lto = -ENOENT;
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>> +
>> + check_lto = 0;
>> + while (gzgets(file, buf, sizeof(buf))) {
>> + /* buf also contains '\n', skip it during comparison. */
>> + if (!strncmp(buf, "CONFIG_LTO_CLANG=y", 18)) {
>> + check_lto = 1;
>> + break;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> + gzclose(file);
>> +out:
>> + return check_lto;
>> +}
>> +
>> static int kallsyms_cb(unsigned long long sym_addr, char sym_type,
>> const char *sym_name, void *ctx)
>> {
>> + int lto_enabled = check_lto_kernel();
>> + char orig_name[PATH_MAX], *res;
>> struct bpf_object *obj = ctx;
>> const struct btf_type *t;
>> struct extern_desc *ext;
>>
>> - ext = find_extern_by_name(obj, sym_name);
>> + /* Only check static variables in data sections */
>> + if (sym_type == 'd' && obj->need_kallsyms && lto_enabled == 1) {
> why bother grepping config.gz ?
> I see no harm in doing below strstr unconditionally.
Do you mean we skip condition
sym_type == 'd' && obj->need_kallsyms && lto_enabled == 1
all together?
For condition sym_type == 'd', Andrii suggested (in private discussion)
to focus on data first since that is the issue we hitted. Of course
we could do all symbols here too.
For condition obj->need_kallsyms, I can remove this one.
For lto_enabled == 1, the main goal is to avoid extra overhead for
not-lto kernels.
I guess that the overhead is not that bad since typically symbol name
is not long. So removing all conditions seems indeed a viable solution.
>
>> + strcpy(orig_name, sym_name);
>> + res = strstr(orig_name, ".llvm.");
>> + if (res) {
>> + *res = '\0';
>> + pr_debug("extern (ksym) '%s': use original name '%s' for comparison\n",
>> + sym_name, orig_name);
>> + }
>> + ext = find_extern_by_name(obj, orig_name);
>> + } else {
>> + ext = find_extern_by_name(obj, sym_name);
>> + }
>> if (!ext || ext->type != EXT_KSYM)
>> return 0;
>>
>> @@ -8322,7 +8382,9 @@ static int bpf_object__resolve_externs(struct bpf_object *obj,
>> return -EINVAL;
>> }
>> if (need_kallsyms) {
>> + obj->need_kallsyms = true;
>> err = bpf_object__read_kallsyms_file(obj);
>> + obj->need_kallsyms = false;
>> if (err)
>> return -EINVAL;
>> }
>> --
>> 2.43.0
>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-21 23:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-21 20:00 [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/5] bpf: Fix a couple of test failures with LTO kernel Yonghong Song
2024-03-21 20:01 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/5] selftests/bpf: Replace CHECK with ASSERT macros for ksyms test Yonghong Song
2024-03-22 12:38 ` Jiri Olsa
2024-03-22 16:13 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-03-22 16:41 ` Yonghong Song
2024-03-22 16:48 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-03-22 17:28 ` Yonghong Song
2024-03-21 20:01 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/5] libbpf: Mark libbpf_kallsyms_parse static function Yonghong Song
2024-03-22 12:37 ` Jiri Olsa
2024-03-22 15:37 ` Yonghong Song
2024-03-21 20:01 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/5] libbpf: Handle <orig_name>.llvm.<hash> symbol properly Yonghong Song
2024-03-21 21:54 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2024-03-21 23:55 ` Yonghong Song [this message]
2024-03-22 0:02 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2024-03-22 0:17 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-03-22 0:32 ` Yonghong Song
2024-03-22 0:18 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-03-22 0:34 ` Yonghong Song
2024-03-22 21:50 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-03-22 22:09 ` Yonghong Song
2024-03-21 20:01 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 4/5] selftests/bpf: Fix kprobe_multi_bench_attach test failure with LTO kernel Yonghong Song
2024-03-22 12:37 ` Jiri Olsa
2024-03-22 16:01 ` Yonghong Song
2024-03-22 21:53 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-03-22 22:20 ` Yonghong Song
2024-03-21 20:01 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 5/5] selftests/bpf: Add a selftest with available_filter_functions_addrs Yonghong Song
2024-03-22 12:26 ` Jiri Olsa
2024-03-22 16:07 ` Yonghong Song
2024-03-22 21:58 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-03-22 22:23 ` 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=559d9eb6-9832-4947-8d32-9be84c217659@linux.dev \
--to=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@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@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