From: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com>
To: Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@fb.com>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>,
Kernel Team <kernel-team@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 bpf-next 1/2] libbpf: Support triple-underscore flavors for kfunc relocation
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2023 18:10:26 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZN+X8iGcF7KS9UA0@krava> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230817225353.2570845-1-davemarchevsky@fb.com>
On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 03:53:52PM -0700, Dave Marchevsky wrote:
> The function signature of kfuncs can change at any time due to their
> intentional lack of stability guarantees. As kfuncs become more widely
> used, BPF program writers will need facilities to support calling
> different versions of a kfunc from a single BPF object. Consider this
> simplified example based on a real scenario we ran into at Meta:
>
> /* initial kfunc signature */
> int some_kfunc(void *ptr)
>
> /* Oops, we need to add some flag to modify behavior. No problem,
> change the kfunc. flags = 0 retains original behavior */
> int some_kfunc(void *ptr, long flags)
>
> If the initial version of the kfunc is deployed on some portion of the
> fleet and the new version on the rest, a fleetwide service that uses
> some_kfunc will currently need to load different BPF programs depending
> on which some_kfunc is available.
>
> Luckily CO-RE provides a facility to solve a very similar problem,
> struct definition changes, by allowing program writers to declare
> my_struct___old and my_struct___new, with ___suffix being considered a
> 'flavor' of the non-suffixed name and being ignored by
> bpf_core_type_exists and similar calls.
>
> This patch extends the 'flavor' facility to the kfunc extern
> relocation process. BPF program writers can now declare
>
> extern int some_kfunc___old(void *ptr)
> extern int some_kfunc___new(void *ptr, int flags)
>
> then test which version of the kfunc exists with bpf_ksym_exists.
> Relocation and verifier's dead code elimination will work in concert as
> expected, allowing this pattern:
>
> if (bpf_ksym_exists(some_kfunc___old))
> some_kfunc___old(ptr);
> else
> some_kfunc___new(ptr, 0);
>
> Changelog:
>
> v1 -> v2: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20230811201346.3240403-1-davemarchevsky@fb.com/
> * No need to check obj->externs[i].essent_name before zfree (Jiri)
> * Use strndup instead of replicating same functionality (Jiri)
> * Properly handle memory allocation falure (Stanislav)
>
> v2 -> v3: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20230816165813.3718580-1-davemarchevsky@fb.com/
> * Move if (ext->is_weak) test above pr_warn to match existing similar behavior
> (David Vernet)
>
> Signed-off-by: Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@fb.com>
lgtm
Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
jirka
> ---
> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> index b14a4376a86e..2178b28878e2 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> @@ -550,6 +550,7 @@ struct extern_desc {
> int btf_id;
> int sec_btf_id;
> const char *name;
> + char *essent_name;
> bool is_set;
> bool is_weak;
> union {
> @@ -3770,6 +3771,7 @@ static int bpf_object__collect_externs(struct bpf_object *obj)
> struct extern_desc *ext;
> int i, n, off, dummy_var_btf_id;
> const char *ext_name, *sec_name;
> + size_t ext_essent_len;
> Elf_Scn *scn;
> Elf64_Shdr *sh;
>
> @@ -3819,6 +3821,14 @@ static int bpf_object__collect_externs(struct bpf_object *obj)
> ext->sym_idx = i;
> ext->is_weak = ELF64_ST_BIND(sym->st_info) == STB_WEAK;
>
> + ext_essent_len = bpf_core_essential_name_len(ext->name);
> + ext->essent_name = NULL;
> + if (ext_essent_len != strlen(ext->name)) {
> + ext->essent_name = strndup(ext->name, ext_essent_len);
> + if (!ext->essent_name)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> + }
> +
> ext->sec_btf_id = find_extern_sec_btf_id(obj->btf, ext->btf_id);
> if (ext->sec_btf_id <= 0) {
> pr_warn("failed to find BTF for extern '%s' [%d] section: %d\n",
> @@ -7624,7 +7634,8 @@ static int bpf_object__resolve_ksym_func_btf_id(struct bpf_object *obj,
>
> local_func_proto_id = ext->ksym.type_id;
>
> - kfunc_id = find_ksym_btf_id(obj, ext->name, BTF_KIND_FUNC, &kern_btf, &mod_btf);
> + kfunc_id = find_ksym_btf_id(obj, ext->essent_name ?: ext->name, BTF_KIND_FUNC, &kern_btf,
> + &mod_btf);
> if (kfunc_id < 0) {
> if (kfunc_id == -ESRCH && ext->is_weak)
> return 0;
> @@ -7639,6 +7650,9 @@ static int bpf_object__resolve_ksym_func_btf_id(struct bpf_object *obj,
> ret = bpf_core_types_are_compat(obj->btf, local_func_proto_id,
> kern_btf, kfunc_proto_id);
> if (ret <= 0) {
> + if (ext->is_weak)
> + return 0;
> +
> pr_warn("extern (func ksym) '%s': func_proto [%d] incompatible with %s [%d]\n",
> ext->name, local_func_proto_id,
> mod_btf ? mod_btf->name : "vmlinux", kfunc_proto_id);
> @@ -8370,6 +8384,10 @@ void bpf_object__close(struct bpf_object *obj)
>
> zfree(&obj->btf_custom_path);
> zfree(&obj->kconfig);
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < obj->nr_extern; i++)
> + zfree(&obj->externs[i].essent_name);
> +
> zfree(&obj->externs);
> obj->nr_extern = 0;
>
> --
> 2.34.1
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-08-18 16:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-17 22:53 [PATCH v3 bpf-next 1/2] libbpf: Support triple-underscore flavors for kfunc relocation Dave Marchevsky
2023-08-17 22:53 ` [PATCH v3 bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add CO-RE relocs kfunc flavors tests Dave Marchevsky
2023-08-18 15:20 ` David Vernet
2023-08-18 15:19 ` [PATCH v3 bpf-next 1/2] libbpf: Support triple-underscore flavors for kfunc relocation David Vernet
2023-08-18 16:10 ` Jiri Olsa [this message]
2023-08-18 16:20 ` 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=ZN+X8iGcF7KS9UA0@krava \
--to=olsajiri@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davemarchevsky@fb.com \
--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