[PATCH bpf-next] docs/bpf: Add description for CO-RE relocations

[PATCH bpf-next] docs/bpf: Add description for CO-RE relocations

[Eduard Zingerman]

Add a section on CO-RE relocations to llvm_relo.rst.
Describe relevant .BTF.ext structure, `enum bpf_core_relo_kind`
and `struct bpf_core_relo` in some detail.
Description is based on doc-string from include/uapi/linux/bpf.h.

Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
---
 Documentation/bpf/btf.rst        |  27 ++++-
 Documentation/bpf/llvm_reloc.rst | 178 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 201 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/btf.rst b/Documentation/bpf/btf.rst
index f32db1f44ae9..c0530211c3c1 100644
--- a/Documentation/bpf/btf.rst
+++ b/Documentation/bpf/btf.rst
@@ -726,8 +726,8 @@ same as the one describe in :ref:`BTF_Type_String`.
 4.2 .BTF.ext section
 --------------------
 
-The .BTF.ext section encodes func_info and line_info which needs loader
-manipulation before loading into the kernel.
+The .BTF.ext section encodes func_info, line_info and CO-RE relocations
+which needs loader manipulation before loading into the kernel.
 
 The specification for .BTF.ext section is defined at ``tools/lib/bpf/btf.h``
 and ``tools/lib/bpf/btf.c``.
@@ -745,11 +745,16 @@ The current header of .BTF.ext section::
         __u32   func_info_len;
         __u32   line_info_off;
         __u32   line_info_len;
+
+        /* optional part of .BTF.ext header */
+        __u32   core_relo_off;
+        __u32   core_relo_len;
     };
 
 It is very similar to .BTF section. Instead of type/string section, it
-contains func_info and line_info section. See :ref:`BPF_Prog_Load` for details
-about func_info and line_info record format.
+contains func_info, line_info and core_relo sub-sections.
+See :ref:`BPF_Prog_Load` for details about func_info and line_info
+record format.
 
 The func_info is organized as below.::
 
@@ -787,6 +792,20 @@ kernel API, the ``insn_off`` is the instruction offset in the unit of ``struct
 bpf_insn``. For ELF API, the ``insn_off`` is the byte offset from the
 beginning of section (``btf_ext_info_sec->sec_name_off``).
 
+The core_relo is organized as below.::
+
+     core_relo_rec_size
+     btf_ext_info_sec for section #1 /* core_relo for section #1 */
+     btf_ext_info_sec for section #2 /* core_relo for section #2 */
+
+``core_relo_rec_size`` specifies the size of ``bpf_core_relo``
+structure when .BTF.ext is generated. All ``bpf_core_relo`` structures
+within a single ``btf_ext_info_sec`` describe relocations applied to
+section named by ``btf_ext_info_sec::sec_name_off``.
+
+See :ref:`Documentation/bpf/llvm_reloc <btf-co-re-relocations>`
+for more information on CO-RE relocations.
+
 4.2 .BTF_ids section
 --------------------
 
diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/llvm_reloc.rst b/Documentation/bpf/llvm_reloc.rst
index 450e6403fe3d..efe0b6ea4921 100644
--- a/Documentation/bpf/llvm_reloc.rst
+++ b/Documentation/bpf/llvm_reloc.rst
@@ -240,3 +240,181 @@ The .BTF/.BTF.ext sections has R_BPF_64_NODYLD32 relocations::
       Offset             Info             Type               Symbol's Value  Symbol's Name
   000000000000002c  0000000200000004 R_BPF_64_NODYLD32      0000000000000000 .text
   0000000000000040  0000000200000004 R_BPF_64_NODYLD32      0000000000000000 .text
+
+.. _btf-co-re-relocations:
+
+=================
+CO-RE Relocations
+=================
+
+From object file point of view CO-RE mechanism is implemented as a set
+of CO-RE specific relocation records. These relocation records are not
+related to ELF relocations and are encoded in .BTF.ext section.
+See :ref:`Documentation/bpf/btf <BTF_Ext_Section>` for more
+information on .BTF.ext structure.
+
+
+CO-RE relocations are applied to BPF instructions to update immediate
+or offset fields of the instruction at load time with information
+relevant for target kernel.
+
+Relocation kinds
+================
+
+There are several kinds of CO-RE relocations that could be split in
+three groups:
+
+* Field-based - patch instruction with field related information, e.g.
+  change offset field of the BPF_LD instruction to reflect offset
+  of a specific structure field in the target kernel.
+
+* Type-based - patch instruction with type related information, e.g.
+  change immediate field of the BPF_MOV instruction to 0 or 1 to
+  reflect if specific type is present in the target kernel.
+
+* Enum-based - patch instruction with enum related information, e.g.
+  change immediate field of the BPF_MOV instruction to reflect value
+  of a specific enum literal in the target kernel.
+
+The complete list of relocation kinds is represented by the following enum:
+
+.. code-block:: c
+
+ enum bpf_core_relo_kind {
+	BPF_CORE_FIELD_BYTE_OFFSET = 0,  /* field byte offset */
+	BPF_CORE_FIELD_BYTE_SIZE   = 1,  /* field size in bytes */
+	BPF_CORE_FIELD_EXISTS      = 2,  /* field existence in target kernel */
+	BPF_CORE_FIELD_SIGNED      = 3,  /* field signedness (0 - unsigned, 1 - signed) */
+	BPF_CORE_FIELD_LSHIFT_U64  = 4,  /* bitfield-specific left bitshift */
+	BPF_CORE_FIELD_RSHIFT_U64  = 5,  /* bitfield-specific right bitshift */
+	BPF_CORE_TYPE_ID_LOCAL     = 6,  /* type ID in local BPF object */
+	BPF_CORE_TYPE_ID_TARGET    = 7,  /* type ID in target kernel */
+	BPF_CORE_TYPE_EXISTS       = 8,  /* type existence in target kernel */
+	BPF_CORE_TYPE_SIZE         = 9,  /* type size in bytes */
+	BPF_CORE_ENUMVAL_EXISTS    = 10, /* enum value existence in target kernel */
+	BPF_CORE_ENUMVAL_VALUE     = 11, /* enum value integer value */
+	BPF_CORE_TYPE_MATCHES      = 12, /* type match in target kernel */
+ };
+
+CO-RE Relocation Record
+=======================
+
+Relocation record is encoded as the following structure:
+
+.. code-block:: c
+
+ struct bpf_core_relo {
+	__u32 insn_off;
+	__u32 type_id;
+	__u32 access_str_off;
+	enum bpf_core_relo_kind kind;
+ };
+
+* ``insn_off`` - instruction offset (in bytes) within a code section
+  associated with this relocation;
+
+* ``type_id`` - BTF type ID of the "root" (containing) entity of a
+  relocatable type or field;
+
+* ``access_str_off`` - offset into corresponding .BTF string section.
+  String interpretation depends on specific relocation kind:
+
+  * for field-based relocations, string encodes an accessed field using
+    a sequence of field and array indices, separated by colon (:). It's
+    conceptually very close to LLVM's `getelementptr <GEP_>`_ instruction's
+    arguments for identifying offset to a field. For example, consider the
+    following C code:
+
+    .. code-block:: c
+
+       struct sample {
+           int a;
+           int b;
+           struct { int c[10]; };
+       } __attribute__((preserve_access_index));
+       struct sample *s;
+
+    * Access to ``s[0].a`` would be encoded as ``0:0``:
+
+      * ``0``: first element of ``s`` (as if ``s`` is an array);
+      * ``0``: index of field ``a`` in ``struct sample``.
+
+    * Access to ``s->a`` would be encoded as ``0:0`` as well.
+    * Access to ``s->b`` would be encoded as ``0:1``:
+
+      * ``0``: first element of ``s``;
+      * ``1``: index of field ``b`` in ``struct sample``.
+
+    * Access to ``s[1].c[5]`` would be encoded as ``1:2:0:5``:
+
+      * ``1``: second element of ``s``;
+      * ``2``: index of anonymous structure field in ``struct sample``;
+      * ``0``: index of field ``b`` in anonymous structure;
+      * ``5``: access to array element #5.
+
+  * for type-based relocations, string is expected to be just "0";
+
+  * for enum value-based relocations, string contains an index of enum
+     value within its enum type;
+
+* ``kind`` - one of ``enum bpf_core_relo_kind``.
+
+.. _GEP: https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#getelementptr-instruction
+
+.. _btf_co_re_relocation_examples:
+
+CO-RE Relocation Examples
+=========================
+
+For the following C code:
+
+.. code-block:: c
+
+ struct foo {
+     int a;
+     int b;
+ } __attribute__((preserve_access_index));
+
+ enum bar { U, V };
+
+ void buz(struct foo *s, volatile unsigned long *g) {
+   s->a = 1;
+   *g = __builtin_preserve_field_info(s->b, 1);
+   *g = __builtin_preserve_type_info(*s, 1);
+   *g = __builtin_preserve_enum_value(*(enum bar *)V, 1);
+ }
+
+With the following BTF definititions:
+
+.. code-block::
+
+ ...
+ [2] STRUCT 'foo' size=8 vlen=2
+ 	'a' type_id=3 bits_offset=0
+ 	'b' type_id=3 bits_offset=32
+ [3] INT 'int' size=4 bits_offset=0 nr_bits=32 encoding=SIGNED
+ ...
+ [9] ENUM 'bar' encoding=UNSIGNED size=4 vlen=2
+ 	'U' val=0
+ 	'V' val=1
+
+The following relocation entries would be generated:
+
+.. code-block:: c
+
+   <buz>:
+       0:	*(u32 *)(r1 + 0x0) = 0x1
+		00:  CO-RE <byte_off> [2] struct foo::a (0:0)
+       1:	r1 = 0x4
+		08:  CO-RE <byte_sz> [2] struct foo::b (0:1)
+       2:	*(u64 *)(r2 + 0x0) = r1
+       3:	r1 = 0x8
+		18:  CO-RE <type_size> [2] struct foo
+       4:	*(u64 *)(r2 + 0x0) = r1
+       5:	r1 = 0x1 ll
+		28:  CO-RE <enumval_value> [9] enum bar::V = 1
+       7:	*(u64 *)(r2 + 0x0) = r1
+       8:	exit
+
+Note: modifications for llvm-objdump to show these relocation entries
+are currently work in progress.
-- 
2.41.0

Re: [PATCH bpf-next] docs/bpf: Add description for CO-RE relocations

[Yonghong Song]

On 8/24/23 4:01 PM, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> Add a section on CO-RE relocations to llvm_relo.rst.
> Describe relevant .BTF.ext structure, `enum bpf_core_relo_kind`
> and `struct bpf_core_relo` in some detail.
> Description is based on doc-string from include/uapi/linux/bpf.h.

Thanks Eduard. This is very helpful to give bpf deverlopers
some insight about how different of core relocations are
supported in llvm and libbpf.

Some comments below.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
> ---
>   Documentation/bpf/btf.rst        |  27 ++++-
>   Documentation/bpf/llvm_reloc.rst | 178 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   2 files changed, 201 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/btf.rst b/Documentation/bpf/btf.rst
> index f32db1f44ae9..c0530211c3c1 100644
> --- a/Documentation/bpf/btf.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/bpf/btf.rst
> @@ -726,8 +726,8 @@ same as the one describe in :ref:`BTF_Type_String`.
>   4.2 .BTF.ext section
>   --------------------
>   
> -The .BTF.ext section encodes func_info and line_info which needs loader
> -manipulation before loading into the kernel.
> +The .BTF.ext section encodes func_info, line_info and CO-RE relocations
> +which needs loader manipulation before loading into the kernel.
>   
>   The specification for .BTF.ext section is defined at ``tools/lib/bpf/btf.h``
>   and ``tools/lib/bpf/btf.c``.
> @@ -745,11 +745,16 @@ The current header of .BTF.ext section::
>           __u32   func_info_len;
>           __u32   line_info_off;
>           __u32   line_info_len;
> +
> +        /* optional part of .BTF.ext header */
> +        __u32   core_relo_off;
> +        __u32   core_relo_len;
>       };
>   
>   It is very similar to .BTF section. Instead of type/string section, it
> -contains func_info and line_info section. See :ref:`BPF_Prog_Load` for details
> -about func_info and line_info record format.
> +contains func_info, line_info and core_relo sub-sections.
> +See :ref:`BPF_Prog_Load` for details about func_info and line_info
> +record format.
>   
>   The func_info is organized as below.::
>   
> @@ -787,6 +792,20 @@ kernel API, the ``insn_off`` is the instruction offset in the unit of ``struct
>   bpf_insn``. For ELF API, the ``insn_off`` is the byte offset from the
>   beginning of section (``btf_ext_info_sec->sec_name_off``).
>   
> +The core_relo is organized as below.::
> +
> +     core_relo_rec_size
> +     btf_ext_info_sec for section #1 /* core_relo for section #1 */
> +     btf_ext_info_sec for section #2 /* core_relo for section #2 */
> +
> +``core_relo_rec_size`` specifies the size of ``bpf_core_relo``
> +structure when .BTF.ext is generated. All ``bpf_core_relo`` structures
> +within a single ``btf_ext_info_sec`` describe relocations applied to
> +section named by ``btf_ext_info_sec::sec_name_off``.

bpf_ext_info_sec->sec_name_off ?

> +
> +See :ref:`Documentation/bpf/llvm_reloc <btf-co-re-relocations>`
> +for more information on CO-RE relocations.
> +
>   4.2 .BTF_ids section
>   --------------------
>   
> diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/llvm_reloc.rst b/Documentation/bpf/llvm_reloc.rst
> index 450e6403fe3d..efe0b6ea4921 100644
> --- a/Documentation/bpf/llvm_reloc.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/bpf/llvm_reloc.rst
> @@ -240,3 +240,181 @@ The .BTF/.BTF.ext sections has R_BPF_64_NODYLD32 relocations::
>         Offset             Info             Type               Symbol's Value  Symbol's Name
>     000000000000002c  0000000200000004 R_BPF_64_NODYLD32      0000000000000000 .text
>     0000000000000040  0000000200000004 R_BPF_64_NODYLD32      0000000000000000 .text
> +
> +.. _btf-co-re-relocations:
> +
> +=================
> +CO-RE Relocations
> +=================
> +
> +From object file point of view CO-RE mechanism is implemented as a set
> +of CO-RE specific relocation records. These relocation records are not
> +related to ELF relocations and are encoded in .BTF.ext section.
> +See :ref:`Documentation/bpf/btf <BTF_Ext_Section>` for more
> +information on .BTF.ext structure.
> +
> +

one empty line here?

> +CO-RE relocations are applied to BPF instructions to update immediate
> +or offset fields of the instruction at load time with information
> +relevant for target kernel.
> +
> +Relocation kinds
> +================
> +
> +There are several kinds of CO-RE relocations that could be split in
> +three groups:
> +
> +* Field-based - patch instruction with field related information, e.g.
> +  change offset field of the BPF_LD instruction to reflect offset

BPF_LDX?

> +  of a specific structure field in the target kernel.
> +
> +* Type-based - patch instruction with type related information, e.g.
> +  change immediate field of the BPF_MOV instruction to 0 or 1 to
> +  reflect if specific type is present in the target kernel.
> +
> +* Enum-based - patch instruction with enum related information, e.g.
> +  change immediate field of the BPF_MOV instruction to reflect value
> +  of a specific enum literal in the target kernel.

BPF_MOV -> BPF_LD_IMM64 ?
below we actually have an example for this:
   +       5:	r1 = 0x1 ll
   +		28:  CO-RE <enumval_value> [9] enum bar::V = 1

> +
> +The complete list of relocation kinds is represented by the following enum:
> +
> +.. code-block:: c
> +
> + enum bpf_core_relo_kind {
> +	BPF_CORE_FIELD_BYTE_OFFSET = 0,  /* field byte offset */
> +	BPF_CORE_FIELD_BYTE_SIZE   = 1,  /* field size in bytes */
> +	BPF_CORE_FIELD_EXISTS      = 2,  /* field existence in target kernel */
> +	BPF_CORE_FIELD_SIGNED      = 3,  /* field signedness (0 - unsigned, 1 - signed) */
> +	BPF_CORE_FIELD_LSHIFT_U64  = 4,  /* bitfield-specific left bitshift */
> +	BPF_CORE_FIELD_RSHIFT_U64  = 5,  /* bitfield-specific right bitshift */
> +	BPF_CORE_TYPE_ID_LOCAL     = 6,  /* type ID in local BPF object */
> +	BPF_CORE_TYPE_ID_TARGET    = 7,  /* type ID in target kernel */
> +	BPF_CORE_TYPE_EXISTS       = 8,  /* type existence in target kernel */
> +	BPF_CORE_TYPE_SIZE         = 9,  /* type size in bytes */
> +	BPF_CORE_ENUMVAL_EXISTS    = 10, /* enum value existence in target kernel */
> +	BPF_CORE_ENUMVAL_VALUE     = 11, /* enum value integer value */
> +	BPF_CORE_TYPE_MATCHES      = 12, /* type match in target kernel */
> + };
> +
> +CO-RE Relocation Record
> +=======================
> +
> +Relocation record is encoded as the following structure:
> +
> +.. code-block:: c
> +
> + struct bpf_core_relo {
> +	__u32 insn_off;
> +	__u32 type_id;
> +	__u32 access_str_off;
> +	enum bpf_core_relo_kind kind;
> + };
> +
> +* ``insn_off`` - instruction offset (in bytes) within a code section
> +  associated with this relocation;
> +
> +* ``type_id`` - BTF type ID of the "root" (containing) entity of a
> +  relocatable type or field;
> +
> +* ``access_str_off`` - offset into corresponding .BTF string section.
> +  String interpretation depends on specific relocation kind:
> +
> +  * for field-based relocations, string encodes an accessed field using
> +    a sequence of field and array indices, separated by colon (:). It's
> +    conceptually very close to LLVM's `getelementptr <GEP_>`_ instruction's
> +    arguments for identifying offset to a field. For example, consider the
> +    following C code:
> +
> +    .. code-block:: c
> +
> +       struct sample {
> +           int a;
> +           int b;
> +           struct { int c[10]; };
> +       } __attribute__((preserve_access_index));
> +       struct sample *s;
> +
> +    * Access to ``s[0].a`` would be encoded as ``0:0``:
> +
> +      * ``0``: first element of ``s`` (as if ``s`` is an array);
> +      * ``0``: index of field ``a`` in ``struct sample``.
> +
> +    * Access to ``s->a`` would be encoded as ``0:0`` as well.
> +    * Access to ``s->b`` would be encoded as ``0:1``:
> +
> +      * ``0``: first element of ``s``;
> +      * ``1``: index of field ``b`` in ``struct sample``.
> +
> +    * Access to ``s[1].c[5]`` would be encoded as ``1:2:0:5``:
> +
> +      * ``1``: second element of ``s``;
> +      * ``2``: index of anonymous structure field in ``struct sample``;
> +      * ``0``: index of field ``b`` in anonymous structure;


``b`` => ``c``

> +      * ``5``: access to array element #5.
> +
> +  * for type-based relocations, string is expected to be just "0";
> +
> +  * for enum value-based relocations, string contains an index of enum
> +     value within its enum type;
> +
> +* ``kind`` - one of ``enum bpf_core_relo_kind``.
> +
> +.. _GEP: https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#getelementptr-instruction
> +
> +.. _btf_co_re_relocation_examples:
> +
> +CO-RE Relocation Examples
> +=========================
> +
> +For the following C code:
> +
> +.. code-block:: c
> +
> + struct foo {
> +     int a;
> +     int b;
> + } __attribute__((preserve_access_index));
> +
> + enum bar { U, V };
> +
> + void buz(struct foo *s, volatile unsigned long *g) {
> +   s->a = 1;
> +   *g = __builtin_preserve_field_info(s->b, 1);
> +   *g = __builtin_preserve_type_info(*s, 1);
> +   *g = __builtin_preserve_enum_value(*(enum bar *)V, 1);

Maybe __builtin_btf_type_id() can be added as well?
So far, clang only supports the above 4 builtin's for core
relocations.

> + }
> +
> +With the following BTF definititions:
> +
> +.. code-block::
> +
> + ...
> + [2] STRUCT 'foo' size=8 vlen=2
> + 	'a' type_id=3 bits_offset=0
> + 	'b' type_id=3 bits_offset=32
> + [3] INT 'int' size=4 bits_offset=0 nr_bits=32 encoding=SIGNED
> + ...
> + [9] ENUM 'bar' encoding=UNSIGNED size=4 vlen=2
> + 	'U' val=0
> + 	'V' val=1
> +
> +The following relocation entries would be generated:
> +
> +.. code-block:: c
> +
> +   <buz>:
> +       0:	*(u32 *)(r1 + 0x0) = 0x1
> +		00:  CO-RE <byte_off> [2] struct foo::a (0:0)
> +       1:	r1 = 0x4
> +		08:  CO-RE <byte_sz> [2] struct foo::b (0:1)
> +       2:	*(u64 *)(r2 + 0x0) = r1
> +       3:	r1 = 0x8
> +		18:  CO-RE <type_size> [2] struct foo
> +       4:	*(u64 *)(r2 + 0x0) = r1
> +       5:	r1 = 0x1 ll
> +		28:  CO-RE <enumval_value> [9] enum bar::V = 1
> +       7:	*(u64 *)(r2 + 0x0) = r1
> +       8:	exit
> +

It would be great if we can have an example for each of above
core relocation kinds.

> +Note: modifications for llvm-objdump to show these relocation entries
> +are currently work in progress.

Re: [PATCH bpf-next] docs/bpf: Add description for CO-RE relocations

[Eduard Zingerman]

On Thu, 2023-08-24 at 23:05 -0700, Yonghong Song wrote:
> 
> On 8/24/23 4:01 PM, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> > Add a section on CO-RE relocations to llvm_relo.rst.
> > Describe relevant .BTF.ext structure, `enum bpf_core_relo_kind`
> > and `struct bpf_core_relo` in some detail.
> > Description is based on doc-string from include/uapi/linux/bpf.h.
> 
> Thanks Eduard. This is very helpful to give bpf deverlopers
> some insight about how different of core relocations are
> supported in llvm and libbpf.

Hi Yonghong,
thank you for taking a look.

> 
> Some comments below.
> 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >   Documentation/bpf/btf.rst        |  27 ++++-
> >   Documentation/bpf/llvm_reloc.rst | 178 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >   2 files changed, 201 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/btf.rst b/Documentation/bpf/btf.rst
> > index f32db1f44ae9..c0530211c3c1 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/bpf/btf.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/bpf/btf.rst
> > @@ -726,8 +726,8 @@ same as the one describe in :ref:`BTF_Type_String`.
> >   4.2 .BTF.ext section
> >   --------------------
> >   
> > -The .BTF.ext section encodes func_info and line_info which needs loader
> > -manipulation before loading into the kernel.
> > +The .BTF.ext section encodes func_info, line_info and CO-RE relocations
> > +which needs loader manipulation before loading into the kernel.
> >   
> >   The specification for .BTF.ext section is defined at ``tools/lib/bpf/btf.h``
> >   and ``tools/lib/bpf/btf.c``.
> > @@ -745,11 +745,16 @@ The current header of .BTF.ext section::
> >           __u32   func_info_len;
> >           __u32   line_info_off;
> >           __u32   line_info_len;
> > +
> > +        /* optional part of .BTF.ext header */
> > +        __u32   core_relo_off;
> > +        __u32   core_relo_len;
> >       };
> >   
> >   It is very similar to .BTF section. Instead of type/string section, it
> > -contains func_info and line_info section. See :ref:`BPF_Prog_Load` for details
> > -about func_info and line_info record format.
> > +contains func_info, line_info and core_relo sub-sections.
> > +See :ref:`BPF_Prog_Load` for details about func_info and line_info
> > +record format.
> >   
> >   The func_info is organized as below.::
> >   
> > @@ -787,6 +792,20 @@ kernel API, the ``insn_off`` is the instruction offset in the unit of ``struct
> >   bpf_insn``. For ELF API, the ``insn_off`` is the byte offset from the
> >   beginning of section (``btf_ext_info_sec->sec_name_off``).
> >   
> > +The core_relo is organized as below.::
> > +
> > +     core_relo_rec_size
> > +     btf_ext_info_sec for section #1 /* core_relo for section #1 */
> > +     btf_ext_info_sec for section #2 /* core_relo for section #2 */
> > +
> > +``core_relo_rec_size`` specifies the size of ``bpf_core_relo``
> > +structure when .BTF.ext is generated. All ``bpf_core_relo`` structures
> > +within a single ``btf_ext_info_sec`` describe relocations applied to
> > +section named by ``btf_ext_info_sec::sec_name_off``.
> 
> bpf_ext_info_sec->sec_name_off ?

Will change.

> 
> > +
> > +See :ref:`Documentation/bpf/llvm_reloc <btf-co-re-relocations>`
> > +for more information on CO-RE relocations.
> > +
> >   4.2 .BTF_ids section
> >   --------------------
> >   
> > diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/llvm_reloc.rst b/Documentation/bpf/llvm_reloc.rst
> > index 450e6403fe3d..efe0b6ea4921 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/bpf/llvm_reloc.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/bpf/llvm_reloc.rst
> > @@ -240,3 +240,181 @@ The .BTF/.BTF.ext sections has R_BPF_64_NODYLD32 relocations::
> >         Offset             Info             Type               Symbol's Value  Symbol's Name
> >     000000000000002c  0000000200000004 R_BPF_64_NODYLD32      0000000000000000 .text
> >     0000000000000040  0000000200000004 R_BPF_64_NODYLD32      0000000000000000 .text
> > +
> > +.. _btf-co-re-relocations:
> > +
> > +=================
> > +CO-RE Relocations
> > +=================
> > +
> > +From object file point of view CO-RE mechanism is implemented as a set
> > +of CO-RE specific relocation records. These relocation records are not
> > +related to ELF relocations and are encoded in .BTF.ext section.
> > +See :ref:`Documentation/bpf/btf <BTF_Ext_Section>` for more
> > +information on .BTF.ext structure.
> > +
> > +
> 
> one empty line here?

Will change.

> 
> > +CO-RE relocations are applied to BPF instructions to update immediate
> > +or offset fields of the instruction at load time with information
> > +relevant for target kernel.
> > +
> > +Relocation kinds
> > +================
> > +
> > +There are several kinds of CO-RE relocations that could be split in
> > +three groups:
> > +
> > +* Field-based - patch instruction with field related information, e.g.
> > +  change offset field of the BPF_LD instruction to reflect offset
> 
> BPF_LDX?

Correct, thank you.

> 
> > +  of a specific structure field in the target kernel.
> > +
> > +* Type-based - patch instruction with type related information, e.g.
> > +  change immediate field of the BPF_MOV instruction to 0 or 1 to
> > +  reflect if specific type is present in the target kernel.
> > +
> > +* Enum-based - patch instruction with enum related information, e.g.
> > +  change immediate field of the BPF_MOV instruction to reflect value
> > +  of a specific enum literal in the target kernel.
> 
> BPF_MOV -> BPF_LD_IMM64 ?
> below we actually have an example for this:
>    +       5:	r1 = 0x1 ll
>    +		28:  CO-RE <enumval_value> [9] enum bar::V = 1

Correct, thank you.

> 
> > +
> > +The complete list of relocation kinds is represented by the following enum:
> > +
> > +.. code-block:: c
> > +
> > + enum bpf_core_relo_kind {
> > +	BPF_CORE_FIELD_BYTE_OFFSET = 0,  /* field byte offset */
> > +	BPF_CORE_FIELD_BYTE_SIZE   = 1,  /* field size in bytes */
> > +	BPF_CORE_FIELD_EXISTS      = 2,  /* field existence in target kernel */
> > +	BPF_CORE_FIELD_SIGNED      = 3,  /* field signedness (0 - unsigned, 1 - signed) */
> > +	BPF_CORE_FIELD_LSHIFT_U64  = 4,  /* bitfield-specific left bitshift */
> > +	BPF_CORE_FIELD_RSHIFT_U64  = 5,  /* bitfield-specific right bitshift */
> > +	BPF_CORE_TYPE_ID_LOCAL     = 6,  /* type ID in local BPF object */
> > +	BPF_CORE_TYPE_ID_TARGET    = 7,  /* type ID in target kernel */
> > +	BPF_CORE_TYPE_EXISTS       = 8,  /* type existence in target kernel */
> > +	BPF_CORE_TYPE_SIZE         = 9,  /* type size in bytes */
> > +	BPF_CORE_ENUMVAL_EXISTS    = 10, /* enum value existence in target kernel */
> > +	BPF_CORE_ENUMVAL_VALUE     = 11, /* enum value integer value */
> > +	BPF_CORE_TYPE_MATCHES      = 12, /* type match in target kernel */
> > + };
> > +
> > +CO-RE Relocation Record
> > +=======================
> > +
> > +Relocation record is encoded as the following structure:
> > +
> > +.. code-block:: c
> > +
> > + struct bpf_core_relo {
> > +	__u32 insn_off;
> > +	__u32 type_id;
> > +	__u32 access_str_off;
> > +	enum bpf_core_relo_kind kind;
> > + };
> > +
> > +* ``insn_off`` - instruction offset (in bytes) within a code section
> > +  associated with this relocation;
> > +
> > +* ``type_id`` - BTF type ID of the "root" (containing) entity of a
> > +  relocatable type or field;
> > +
> > +* ``access_str_off`` - offset into corresponding .BTF string section.
> > +  String interpretation depends on specific relocation kind:
> > +
> > +  * for field-based relocations, string encodes an accessed field using
> > +    a sequence of field and array indices, separated by colon (:). It's
> > +    conceptually very close to LLVM's `getelementptr <GEP_>`_ instruction's
> > +    arguments for identifying offset to a field. For example, consider the
> > +    following C code:
> > +
> > +    .. code-block:: c
> > +
> > +       struct sample {
> > +           int a;
> > +           int b;
> > +           struct { int c[10]; };
> > +       } __attribute__((preserve_access_index));
> > +       struct sample *s;
> > +
> > +    * Access to ``s[0].a`` would be encoded as ``0:0``:
> > +
> > +      * ``0``: first element of ``s`` (as if ``s`` is an array);
> > +      * ``0``: index of field ``a`` in ``struct sample``.
> > +
> > +    * Access to ``s->a`` would be encoded as ``0:0`` as well.
> > +    * Access to ``s->b`` would be encoded as ``0:1``:
> > +
> > +      * ``0``: first element of ``s``;
> > +      * ``1``: index of field ``b`` in ``struct sample``.
> > +
> > +    * Access to ``s[1].c[5]`` would be encoded as ``1:2:0:5``:
> > +
> > +      * ``1``: second element of ``s``;
> > +      * ``2``: index of anonymous structure field in ``struct sample``;
> > +      * ``0``: index of field ``b`` in anonymous structure;
> 
> 
> ``b`` => ``c``

Right, sorry, changed the example a few times ...

> 
> > +      * ``5``: access to array element #5.
> > +
> > +  * for type-based relocations, string is expected to be just "0";
> > +
> > +  * for enum value-based relocations, string contains an index of enum
> > +     value within its enum type;
> > +
> > +* ``kind`` - one of ``enum bpf_core_relo_kind``.
> > +
> > +.. _GEP: https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#getelementptr-instruction
> > +
> > +.. _btf_co_re_relocation_examples:
> > +
> > +CO-RE Relocation Examples
> > +=========================
> > +
> > +For the following C code:
> > +
> > +.. code-block:: c
> > +
> > + struct foo {
> > +     int a;
> > +     int b;
> > + } __attribute__((preserve_access_index));
> > +
> > + enum bar { U, V };
> > +
> > + void buz(struct foo *s, volatile unsigned long *g) {
> > +   s->a = 1;
> > +   *g = __builtin_preserve_field_info(s->b, 1);
> > +   *g = __builtin_preserve_type_info(*s, 1);
> > +   *g = __builtin_preserve_enum_value(*(enum bar *)V, 1);
> 
> Maybe __builtin_btf_type_id() can be added as well?
> So far, clang only supports the above 4 builtin's for core
> relocations.

Will add __builtin_btf_type_id() as well.

> 
> > + }
> > +
> > +With the following BTF definititions:
> > +
> > +.. code-block::
> > +
> > + ...
> > + [2] STRUCT 'foo' size=8 vlen=2
> > + 	'a' type_id=3 bits_offset=0
> > + 	'b' type_id=3 bits_offset=32
> > + [3] INT 'int' size=4 bits_offset=0 nr_bits=32 encoding=SIGNED
> > + ...
> > + [9] ENUM 'bar' encoding=UNSIGNED size=4 vlen=2
> > + 	'U' val=0
> > + 	'V' val=1
> > +
> > +The following relocation entries would be generated:
> > +
> > +.. code-block:: c
> > +
> > +   <buz>:
> > +       0:	*(u32 *)(r1 + 0x0) = 0x1
> > +		00:  CO-RE <byte_off> [2] struct foo::a (0:0)
> > +       1:	r1 = 0x4
> > +		08:  CO-RE <byte_sz> [2] struct foo::b (0:1)
> > +       2:	*(u64 *)(r2 + 0x0) = r1
> > +       3:	r1 = 0x8
> > +		18:  CO-RE <type_size> [2] struct foo
> > +       4:	*(u64 *)(r2 + 0x0) = r1
> > +       5:	r1 = 0x1 ll
> > +		28:  CO-RE <enumval_value> [9] enum bar::V = 1
> > +       7:	*(u64 *)(r2 + 0x0) = r1
> > +       8:	exit
> > +
> 
> It would be great if we can have an example for each of above
> core relocation kinds.

You mean all 13 kinds, right?

> 
> > +Note: modifications for llvm-objdump to show these relocation entries
> > +are currently work in progress.

Re: [PATCH bpf-next] docs/bpf: Add description for CO-RE relocations

[Yonghong Song]

On 8/25/23 4:40 AM, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> On Thu, 2023-08-24 at 23:05 -0700, Yonghong Song wrote:
>>
>> On 8/24/23 4:01 PM, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
>>> Add a section on CO-RE relocations to llvm_relo.rst.
>>> Describe relevant .BTF.ext structure, `enum bpf_core_relo_kind`
>>> and `struct bpf_core_relo` in some detail.
>>> Description is based on doc-string from include/uapi/linux/bpf.h.
>>
>> Thanks Eduard. This is very helpful to give bpf deverlopers
>> some insight about how different of core relocations are
>> supported in llvm and libbpf.
> 
> Hi Yonghong,
> thank you for taking a look.
> 
>>
>> Some comments below.
>>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>>    Documentation/bpf/btf.rst        |  27 ++++-
>>>    Documentation/bpf/llvm_reloc.rst | 178 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>    2 files changed, 201 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/btf.rst b/Documentation/bpf/btf.rst
>>> index f32db1f44ae9..c0530211c3c1 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/bpf/btf.rst
>>> +++ b/Documentation/bpf/btf.rst
>>> @@ -726,8 +726,8 @@ same as the one describe in :ref:`BTF_Type_String`.
>>>    4.2 .BTF.ext section
>>>    --------------------
[...]
>>> +
>>> +The complete list of relocation kinds is represented by the following enum:
>>> +
>>> +.. code-block:: c
>>> +
>>> + enum bpf_core_relo_kind {
>>> +	BPF_CORE_FIELD_BYTE_OFFSET = 0,  /* field byte offset */
>>> +	BPF_CORE_FIELD_BYTE_SIZE   = 1,  /* field size in bytes */
>>> +	BPF_CORE_FIELD_EXISTS      = 2,  /* field existence in target kernel */
>>> +	BPF_CORE_FIELD_SIGNED      = 3,  /* field signedness (0 - unsigned, 1 - signed) */
>>> +	BPF_CORE_FIELD_LSHIFT_U64  = 4,  /* bitfield-specific left bitshift */
>>> +	BPF_CORE_FIELD_RSHIFT_U64  = 5,  /* bitfield-specific right bitshift */
>>> +	BPF_CORE_TYPE_ID_LOCAL     = 6,  /* type ID in local BPF object */
>>> +	BPF_CORE_TYPE_ID_TARGET    = 7,  /* type ID in target kernel */
>>> +	BPF_CORE_TYPE_EXISTS       = 8,  /* type existence in target kernel */
>>> +	BPF_CORE_TYPE_SIZE         = 9,  /* type size in bytes */
>>> +	BPF_CORE_ENUMVAL_EXISTS    = 10, /* enum value existence in target kernel */
>>> +	BPF_CORE_ENUMVAL_VALUE     = 11, /* enum value integer value */
>>> +	BPF_CORE_TYPE_MATCHES      = 12, /* type match in target kernel */
>>> + };
>>> +
[...]
>>> +
>>> +CO-RE Relocation Examples
>>> +=========================
>>> +
>>> +For the following C code:
>>> +
>>> +.. code-block:: c
>>> +
>>> + struct foo {
>>> +     int a;
>>> +     int b;
>>> + } __attribute__((preserve_access_index));
>>> +
>>> + enum bar { U, V };
>>> +
>>> + void buz(struct foo *s, volatile unsigned long *g) {
>>> +   s->a = 1;
>>> +   *g = __builtin_preserve_field_info(s->b, 1);
>>> +   *g = __builtin_preserve_type_info(*s, 1);
>>> +   *g = __builtin_preserve_enum_value(*(enum bar *)V, 1);
>>
>> Maybe __builtin_btf_type_id() can be added as well?
>> So far, clang only supports the above 4 builtin's for core
>> relocations.
> 
> Will add __builtin_btf_type_id() as well.
> 
>>
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> +With the following BTF definititions:
>>> +
>>> +.. code-block::
>>> +
>>> + ...
>>> + [2] STRUCT 'foo' size=8 vlen=2
>>> + 	'a' type_id=3 bits_offset=0
>>> + 	'b' type_id=3 bits_offset=32
>>> + [3] INT 'int' size=4 bits_offset=0 nr_bits=32 encoding=SIGNED
>>> + ...
>>> + [9] ENUM 'bar' encoding=UNSIGNED size=4 vlen=2
>>> + 	'U' val=0
>>> + 	'V' val=1
>>> +
>>> +The following relocation entries would be generated:
>>> +
>>> +.. code-block:: c
>>> +
>>> +   <buz>:
>>> +       0:	*(u32 *)(r1 + 0x0) = 0x1
>>> +		00:  CO-RE <byte_off> [2] struct foo::a (0:0)
>>> +       1:	r1 = 0x4
>>> +		08:  CO-RE <byte_sz> [2] struct foo::b (0:1)
>>> +       2:	*(u64 *)(r2 + 0x0) = r1
>>> +       3:	r1 = 0x8
>>> +		18:  CO-RE <type_size> [2] struct foo
>>> +       4:	*(u64 *)(r2 + 0x0) = r1
>>> +       5:	r1 = 0x1 ll
>>> +		28:  CO-RE <enumval_value> [9] enum bar::V = 1
>>> +       7:	*(u64 *)(r2 + 0x0) = r1
>>> +       8:	exit
>>> +
>>
>> It would be great if we can have an example for each of above
>> core relocation kinds.
> 
> You mean all 13 kinds, right?

Yes, it would be great if we have at least one example for each kind
to illustrate what this relo kind intends to do.

> 
>>
>>> +Note: modifications for llvm-objdump to show these relocation entries
>>> +are currently work in progress.
> 
> 

Re: [PATCH bpf-next] docs/bpf: Add description for CO-RE relocations

[Andrii Nakryiko]

On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 4:02 PM Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Add a section on CO-RE relocations to llvm_relo.rst.
> Describe relevant .BTF.ext structure, `enum bpf_core_relo_kind`
> and `struct bpf_core_relo` in some detail.
> Description is based on doc-string from include/uapi/linux/bpf.h.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
> ---

Looks great overall, thanks a lot for adding this!

>  Documentation/bpf/btf.rst        |  27 ++++-
>  Documentation/bpf/llvm_reloc.rst | 178 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 201 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/btf.rst b/Documentation/bpf/btf.rst
> index f32db1f44ae9..c0530211c3c1 100644
> --- a/Documentation/bpf/btf.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/bpf/btf.rst
> @@ -726,8 +726,8 @@ same as the one describe in :ref:`BTF_Type_String`.
>  4.2 .BTF.ext section
>  --------------------
>
> -The .BTF.ext section encodes func_info and line_info which needs loader
> -manipulation before loading into the kernel.
> +The .BTF.ext section encodes func_info, line_info and CO-RE relocations
> +which needs loader manipulation before loading into the kernel.
>
>  The specification for .BTF.ext section is defined at ``tools/lib/bpf/btf.h``
>  and ``tools/lib/bpf/btf.c``.
> @@ -745,11 +745,16 @@ The current header of .BTF.ext section::
>          __u32   func_info_len;
>          __u32   line_info_off;
>          __u32   line_info_len;
> +
> +        /* optional part of .BTF.ext header */
> +        __u32   core_relo_off;
> +        __u32   core_relo_len;
>      };
>
>  It is very similar to .BTF section. Instead of type/string section, it
> -contains func_info and line_info section. See :ref:`BPF_Prog_Load` for details
> -about func_info and line_info record format.
> +contains func_info, line_info and core_relo sub-sections.
> +See :ref:`BPF_Prog_Load` for details about func_info and line_info
> +record format.
>
>  The func_info is organized as below.::
>
> @@ -787,6 +792,20 @@ kernel API, the ``insn_off`` is the instruction offset in the unit of ``struct
>  bpf_insn``. For ELF API, the ``insn_off`` is the byte offset from the
>  beginning of section (``btf_ext_info_sec->sec_name_off``).
>
> +The core_relo is organized as below.::
> +
> +     core_relo_rec_size

nit: should we specify that this is __u32 value? Same for func_info
and line_info. I'm not sure we ever explicitly mention this this
record size is 4 byte long.

> +     btf_ext_info_sec for section #1 /* core_relo for section #1 */
> +     btf_ext_info_sec for section #2 /* core_relo for section #2 */
> +
> +``core_relo_rec_size`` specifies the size of ``bpf_core_relo``
> +structure when .BTF.ext is generated. All ``bpf_core_relo`` structures
> +within a single ``btf_ext_info_sec`` describe relocations applied to
> +section named by ``btf_ext_info_sec::sec_name_off``.
> +
> +See :ref:`Documentation/bpf/llvm_reloc <btf-co-re-relocations>`
> +for more information on CO-RE relocations.
> +
>  4.2 .BTF_ids section
>  --------------------
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/llvm_reloc.rst b/Documentation/bpf/llvm_reloc.rst
> index 450e6403fe3d..efe0b6ea4921 100644
> --- a/Documentation/bpf/llvm_reloc.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/bpf/llvm_reloc.rst
> @@ -240,3 +240,181 @@ The .BTF/.BTF.ext sections has R_BPF_64_NODYLD32 relocations::
>        Offset             Info             Type               Symbol's Value  Symbol's Name
>    000000000000002c  0000000200000004 R_BPF_64_NODYLD32      0000000000000000 .text
>    0000000000000040  0000000200000004 R_BPF_64_NODYLD32      0000000000000000 .text
> +
> +.. _btf-co-re-relocations:
> +
> +=================
> +CO-RE Relocations
> +=================
> +
> +From object file point of view CO-RE mechanism is implemented as a set
> +of CO-RE specific relocation records. These relocation records are not
> +related to ELF relocations and are encoded in .BTF.ext section.
> +See :ref:`Documentation/bpf/btf <BTF_Ext_Section>` for more
> +information on .BTF.ext structure.
> +
> +
> +CO-RE relocations are applied to BPF instructions to update immediate
> +or offset fields of the instruction at load time with information
> +relevant for target kernel.
> +
> +Relocation kinds
> +================
> +
> +There are several kinds of CO-RE relocations that could be split in
> +three groups:
> +
> +* Field-based - patch instruction with field related information, e.g.
> +  change offset field of the BPF_LD instruction to reflect offset
> +  of a specific structure field in the target kernel.
> +
> +* Type-based - patch instruction with type related information, e.g.
> +  change immediate field of the BPF_MOV instruction to 0 or 1 to
> +  reflect if specific type is present in the target kernel.
> +
> +* Enum-based - patch instruction with enum related information, e.g.
> +  change immediate field of the BPF_MOV instruction to reflect value
> +  of a specific enum literal in the target kernel.
> +

Instead of referencing BPF_MOV specifically, would it be useful to
incorporate all the different instructions that can be relocated?
bpf_core_patch_insn comment has a nice summary, maybe we can somehow
reuse it in this doc as well?

 * Currently supported classes of BPF instruction are:
 * 1. rX = <imm> (assignment with immediate operand);
 * 2. rX += <imm> (arithmetic operations with immediate operand);
 * 3. rX = <imm64> (load with 64-bit immediate value);
 * 4. rX = *(T *)(rY + <off>), where T is one of {u8, u16, u32, u64};
 * 5. *(T *)(rX + <off>) = rY, where T is one of {u8, u16, u32, u64};
 * 6. *(T *)(rX + <off>) = <imm>, where T is one of {u8, u16, u32, u64}.


> +The complete list of relocation kinds is represented by the following enum:
> +
> +.. code-block:: c
> +
> + enum bpf_core_relo_kind {
> +       BPF_CORE_FIELD_BYTE_OFFSET = 0,  /* field byte offset */
> +       BPF_CORE_FIELD_BYTE_SIZE   = 1,  /* field size in bytes */
> +       BPF_CORE_FIELD_EXISTS      = 2,  /* field existence in target kernel */
> +       BPF_CORE_FIELD_SIGNED      = 3,  /* field signedness (0 - unsigned, 1 - signed) */
> +       BPF_CORE_FIELD_LSHIFT_U64  = 4,  /* bitfield-specific left bitshift */
> +       BPF_CORE_FIELD_RSHIFT_U64  = 5,  /* bitfield-specific right bitshift */
> +       BPF_CORE_TYPE_ID_LOCAL     = 6,  /* type ID in local BPF object */
> +       BPF_CORE_TYPE_ID_TARGET    = 7,  /* type ID in target kernel */
> +       BPF_CORE_TYPE_EXISTS       = 8,  /* type existence in target kernel */
> +       BPF_CORE_TYPE_SIZE         = 9,  /* type size in bytes */
> +       BPF_CORE_ENUMVAL_EXISTS    = 10, /* enum value existence in target kernel */
> +       BPF_CORE_ENUMVAL_VALUE     = 11, /* enum value integer value */
> +       BPF_CORE_TYPE_MATCHES      = 12, /* type match in target kernel */
> + };
> +
> +CO-RE Relocation Record
> +=======================
> +

[...]

> +CO-RE Relocation Examples
> +=========================
> +
> +For the following C code:
> +
> +.. code-block:: c
> +
> + struct foo {
> +     int a;
> +     int b;
> + } __attribute__((preserve_access_index));
> +
> + enum bar { U, V };
> +
> + void buz(struct foo *s, volatile unsigned long *g) {
> +   s->a = 1;
> +   *g = __builtin_preserve_field_info(s->b, 1);
> +   *g = __builtin_preserve_type_info(*s, 1);
> +   *g = __builtin_preserve_enum_value(*(enum bar *)V, 1);
> + }
> +
> +With the following BTF definititions:

Gmail points to typo in "definitions"

> +
> +.. code-block::
> +
> + ...
> + [2] STRUCT 'foo' size=8 vlen=2
> +       'a' type_id=3 bits_offset=0
> +       'b' type_id=3 bits_offset=32
> + [3] INT 'int' size=4 bits_offset=0 nr_bits=32 encoding=SIGNED
> + ...
> + [9] ENUM 'bar' encoding=UNSIGNED size=4 vlen=2
> +       'U' val=0
> +       'V' val=1
> +
> +The following relocation entries would be generated:
> +
> +.. code-block:: c
> +
> +   <buz>:
> +       0:      *(u32 *)(r1 + 0x0) = 0x1
> +               00:  CO-RE <byte_off> [2] struct foo::a (0:0)
> +       1:      r1 = 0x4
> +               08:  CO-RE <byte_sz> [2] struct foo::b (0:1)
> +       2:      *(u64 *)(r2 + 0x0) = r1
> +       3:      r1 = 0x8
> +               18:  CO-RE <type_size> [2] struct foo
> +       4:      *(u64 *)(r2 + 0x0) = r1
> +       5:      r1 = 0x1 ll
> +               28:  CO-RE <enumval_value> [9] enum bar::V = 1
> +       7:      *(u64 *)(r2 + 0x0) = r1
> +       8:      exit
> +
> +Note: modifications for llvm-objdump to show these relocation entries
> +are currently work in progress.

Do we need this note here? Doesn't seem like you have any other
reference to llvm-objdump?

> --
> 2.41.0
>

Re: [PATCH bpf-next] docs/bpf: Add description for CO-RE relocations

[Eduard Zingerman]

On Fri, 2023-08-25 at 13:57 -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 4:02 PM Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Add a section on CO-RE relocations to llvm_relo.rst.
> > Describe relevant .BTF.ext structure, `enum bpf_core_relo_kind`
> > and `struct bpf_core_relo` in some detail.
> > Description is based on doc-string from include/uapi/linux/bpf.h.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
> > ---
> 
> Looks great overall, thanks a lot for adding this!
> 
> >  Documentation/bpf/btf.rst        |  27 ++++-
> >  Documentation/bpf/llvm_reloc.rst | 178 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 201 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/btf.rst b/Documentation/bpf/btf.rst
> > index f32db1f44ae9..c0530211c3c1 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/bpf/btf.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/bpf/btf.rst
> > @@ -726,8 +726,8 @@ same as the one describe in :ref:`BTF_Type_String`.
> >  4.2 .BTF.ext section
> >  --------------------
> > 
> > -The .BTF.ext section encodes func_info and line_info which needs loader
> > -manipulation before loading into the kernel.
> > +The .BTF.ext section encodes func_info, line_info and CO-RE relocations
> > +which needs loader manipulation before loading into the kernel.
> > 
> >  The specification for .BTF.ext section is defined at ``tools/lib/bpf/btf.h``
> >  and ``tools/lib/bpf/btf.c``.
> > @@ -745,11 +745,16 @@ The current header of .BTF.ext section::
> >          __u32   func_info_len;
> >          __u32   line_info_off;
> >          __u32   line_info_len;
> > +
> > +        /* optional part of .BTF.ext header */
> > +        __u32   core_relo_off;
> > +        __u32   core_relo_len;
> >      };
> > 
> >  It is very similar to .BTF section. Instead of type/string section, it
> > -contains func_info and line_info section. See :ref:`BPF_Prog_Load` for details
> > -about func_info and line_info record format.
> > +contains func_info, line_info and core_relo sub-sections.
> > +See :ref:`BPF_Prog_Load` for details about func_info and line_info
> > +record format.
> > 
> >  The func_info is organized as below.::
> > 
> > @@ -787,6 +792,20 @@ kernel API, the ``insn_off`` is the instruction offset in the unit of ``struct
> >  bpf_insn``. For ELF API, the ``insn_off`` is the byte offset from the
> >  beginning of section (``btf_ext_info_sec->sec_name_off``).
> > 
> > +The core_relo is organized as below.::
> > +
> > +     core_relo_rec_size
> 
> nit: should we specify that this is __u32 value? Same for func_info
> and line_info. I'm not sure we ever explicitly mention this this
> record size is 4 byte long.

Yeap, we don't mention it anywhere, I will add __u32 to the
description.

> 
> > +     btf_ext_info_sec for section #1 /* core_relo for section #1 */
> > +     btf_ext_info_sec for section #2 /* core_relo for section #2 */
> > +
> > +``core_relo_rec_size`` specifies the size of ``bpf_core_relo``
> > +structure when .BTF.ext is generated. All ``bpf_core_relo`` structures
> > +within a single ``btf_ext_info_sec`` describe relocations applied to
> > +section named by ``btf_ext_info_sec::sec_name_off``.
> > +
> > +See :ref:`Documentation/bpf/llvm_reloc <btf-co-re-relocations>`
> > +for more information on CO-RE relocations.
> > +
> >  4.2 .BTF_ids section
> >  --------------------
> > 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/llvm_reloc.rst b/Documentation/bpf/llvm_reloc.rst
> > index 450e6403fe3d..efe0b6ea4921 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/bpf/llvm_reloc.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/bpf/llvm_reloc.rst
> > @@ -240,3 +240,181 @@ The .BTF/.BTF.ext sections has R_BPF_64_NODYLD32 relocations::
> >        Offset             Info             Type               Symbol's Value  Symbol's Name
> >    000000000000002c  0000000200000004 R_BPF_64_NODYLD32      0000000000000000 .text
> >    0000000000000040  0000000200000004 R_BPF_64_NODYLD32      0000000000000000 .text
> > +
> > +.. _btf-co-re-relocations:
> > +
> > +=================
> > +CO-RE Relocations
> > +=================
> > +
> > +From object file point of view CO-RE mechanism is implemented as a set
> > +of CO-RE specific relocation records. These relocation records are not
> > +related to ELF relocations and are encoded in .BTF.ext section.
> > +See :ref:`Documentation/bpf/btf <BTF_Ext_Section>` for more
> > +information on .BTF.ext structure.
> > +
> > +
> > +CO-RE relocations are applied to BPF instructions to update immediate
> > +or offset fields of the instruction at load time with information
> > +relevant for target kernel.
> > +
> > +Relocation kinds
> > +================
> > +
> > +There are several kinds of CO-RE relocations that could be split in
> > +three groups:
> > +
> > +* Field-based - patch instruction with field related information, e.g.
> > +  change offset field of the BPF_LD instruction to reflect offset
> > +  of a specific structure field in the target kernel.
> > +
> > +* Type-based - patch instruction with type related information, e.g.
> > +  change immediate field of the BPF_MOV instruction to 0 or 1 to
> > +  reflect if specific type is present in the target kernel.
> > +
> > +* Enum-based - patch instruction with enum related information, e.g.
> > +  change immediate field of the BPF_MOV instruction to reflect value
> > +  of a specific enum literal in the target kernel.
> > +
> 
> Instead of referencing BPF_MOV specifically, would it be useful to
> incorporate all the different instructions that can be relocated?
> bpf_core_patch_insn comment has a nice summary, maybe we can somehow
> reuse it in this doc as well?
> 
>  * Currently supported classes of BPF instruction are:
>  * 1. rX = <imm> (assignment with immediate operand);
>  * 2. rX += <imm> (arithmetic operations with immediate operand);
>  * 3. rX = <imm64> (load with 64-bit immediate value);
>  * 4. rX = *(T *)(rY + <off>), where T is one of {u8, u16, u32, u64};
>  * 5. *(T *)(rX + <off>) = rY, where T is one of {u8, u16, u32, u64};
>  * 6. *(T *)(rX + <off>) = <imm>, where T is one of {u8, u16, u32, u64}.

Good point. I will keep the BPF_MOV as an example for relocation kind
groups description and add this comment describing all relocatable
instructions.

> > +The complete list of relocation kinds is represented by the following enum:
> > +
> > +.. code-block:: c
> > +
> > + enum bpf_core_relo_kind {
> > +       BPF_CORE_FIELD_BYTE_OFFSET = 0,  /* field byte offset */
> > +       BPF_CORE_FIELD_BYTE_SIZE   = 1,  /* field size in bytes */
> > +       BPF_CORE_FIELD_EXISTS      = 2,  /* field existence in target kernel */
> > +       BPF_CORE_FIELD_SIGNED      = 3,  /* field signedness (0 - unsigned, 1 - signed) */
> > +       BPF_CORE_FIELD_LSHIFT_U64  = 4,  /* bitfield-specific left bitshift */
> > +       BPF_CORE_FIELD_RSHIFT_U64  = 5,  /* bitfield-specific right bitshift */
> > +       BPF_CORE_TYPE_ID_LOCAL     = 6,  /* type ID in local BPF object */
> > +       BPF_CORE_TYPE_ID_TARGET    = 7,  /* type ID in target kernel */
> > +       BPF_CORE_TYPE_EXISTS       = 8,  /* type existence in target kernel */
> > +       BPF_CORE_TYPE_SIZE         = 9,  /* type size in bytes */
> > +       BPF_CORE_ENUMVAL_EXISTS    = 10, /* enum value existence in target kernel */
> > +       BPF_CORE_ENUMVAL_VALUE     = 11, /* enum value integer value */
> > +       BPF_CORE_TYPE_MATCHES      = 12, /* type match in target kernel */
> > + };
> > +
> > +CO-RE Relocation Record
> > +=======================
> > +
> 
> [...]
> 
> > +CO-RE Relocation Examples
> > +=========================
> > +
> > +For the following C code:
> > +
> > +.. code-block:: c
> > +
> > + struct foo {
> > +     int a;
> > +     int b;
> > + } __attribute__((preserve_access_index));
> > +
> > + enum bar { U, V };
> > +
> > + void buz(struct foo *s, volatile unsigned long *g) {
> > +   s->a = 1;
> > +   *g = __builtin_preserve_field_info(s->b, 1);
> > +   *g = __builtin_preserve_type_info(*s, 1);
> > +   *g = __builtin_preserve_enum_value(*(enum bar *)V, 1);
> > + }
> > +
> > +With the following BTF definititions:
> 
> Gmail points to typo in "definitions"

Ouch.

> > +
> > +.. code-block::
> > +
> > + ...
> > + [2] STRUCT 'foo' size=8 vlen=2
> > +       'a' type_id=3 bits_offset=0
> > +       'b' type_id=3 bits_offset=32
> > + [3] INT 'int' size=4 bits_offset=0 nr_bits=32 encoding=SIGNED
> > + ...
> > + [9] ENUM 'bar' encoding=UNSIGNED size=4 vlen=2
> > +       'U' val=0
> > +       'V' val=1
> > +
> > +The following relocation entries would be generated:
> > +
> > +.. code-block:: c
> > +
> > +   <buz>:
> > +       0:      *(u32 *)(r1 + 0x0) = 0x1
> > +               00:  CO-RE <byte_off> [2] struct foo::a (0:0)
> > +       1:      r1 = 0x4
> > +               08:  CO-RE <byte_sz> [2] struct foo::b (0:1)
> > +       2:      *(u64 *)(r2 + 0x0) = r1
> > +       3:      r1 = 0x8
> > +               18:  CO-RE <type_size> [2] struct foo
> > +       4:      *(u64 *)(r2 + 0x0) = r1
> > +       5:      r1 = 0x1 ll
> > +               28:  CO-RE <enumval_value> [9] enum bar::V = 1
> > +       7:      *(u64 *)(r2 + 0x0) = r1
> > +       8:      exit
> > +
> > +Note: modifications for llvm-objdump to show these relocation entries
> > +are currently work in progress.
> 
> Do we need this note here? Doesn't seem like you have any other
> reference to llvm-objdump?

Idk, I hope that llvm-objdump update would be merged eventually and
I'll replace the note with correct llvm-objdump incantation.

Re: [PATCH bpf-next] docs/bpf: Add description for CO-RE relocations

[Eduard Zingerman]

On Sat, 2023-08-26 at 00:10 +0300, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
[...]
> > 
> > Instead of referencing BPF_MOV specifically, would it be useful to
> > incorporate all the different instructions that can be relocated?
> > bpf_core_patch_insn comment has a nice summary, maybe we can somehow
> > reuse it in this doc as well?
> > 
> >  * Currently supported classes of BPF instruction are:
> >  * 1. rX = <imm> (assignment with immediate operand);
> >  * 2. rX += <imm> (arithmetic operations with immediate operand);
> >  * 3. rX = <imm64> (load with 64-bit immediate value);
> >  * 4. rX = *(T *)(rY + <off>), where T is one of {u8, u16, u32, u64};
> >  * 5. *(T *)(rX + <off>) = rY, where T is one of {u8, u16, u32, u64};
> >  * 6. *(T *)(rX + <off>) = <imm>, where T is one of {u8, u16, u32, u64}.
> 
> Good point. I will keep the BPF_MOV as an example for relocation kind
> groups description and add this comment describing all relocatable
> instructions.
> 

Actually, this comment does not mention atomic instructions or loads
with sign extension. bpf_core_patch_insn() operates basing on
instruction class. I'll describe it as follows:

  Field to patch is selected basing on the instruction class:

  * For BPF_ALU, BPF_ALU64, BPF_LD immediate field is patched;
  * For BPF_LDX, BPF_STX, BPF_ST offset field is patched;

WDYT?

[...]

Re: [PATCH bpf-next] docs/bpf: Add description for CO-RE relocations

[Andrii Nakryiko]

On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 3:01 PM Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2023-08-26 at 00:10 +0300, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> [...]
> > >
> > > Instead of referencing BPF_MOV specifically, would it be useful to
> > > incorporate all the different instructions that can be relocated?
> > > bpf_core_patch_insn comment has a nice summary, maybe we can somehow
> > > reuse it in this doc as well?
> > >
> > >  * Currently supported classes of BPF instruction are:
> > >  * 1. rX = <imm> (assignment with immediate operand);
> > >  * 2. rX += <imm> (arithmetic operations with immediate operand);
> > >  * 3. rX = <imm64> (load with 64-bit immediate value);
> > >  * 4. rX = *(T *)(rY + <off>), where T is one of {u8, u16, u32, u64};
> > >  * 5. *(T *)(rX + <off>) = rY, where T is one of {u8, u16, u32, u64};
> > >  * 6. *(T *)(rX + <off>) = <imm>, where T is one of {u8, u16, u32, u64}.
> >
> > Good point. I will keep the BPF_MOV as an example for relocation kind
> > groups description and add this comment describing all relocatable
> > instructions.
> >
>
> Actually, this comment does not mention atomic instructions or loads
> with sign extension. bpf_core_patch_insn() operates basing on
> instruction class. I'll describe it as follows:
>
>   Field to patch is selected basing on the instruction class:
>
>   * For BPF_ALU, BPF_ALU64, BPF_LD immediate field is patched;
>   * For BPF_LDX, BPF_STX, BPF_ST offset field is patched;
>
> WDYT?

SGTM. As a human I still like the `rX += <imm>` notation, but for
documentation BPF_ALU would be more precise and appropriate.

>
> [...]