From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (lindbergh.monkeyblade.net [23.128.96.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA00D7472 for ; Sat, 12 Aug 2023 20:03:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ej1-x633.google.com (mail-ej1-x633.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::633]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B837C5 for ; Sat, 12 Aug 2023 13:03:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ej1-x633.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-99bc9e3cbf1so634829366b.0 for ; Sat, 12 Aug 2023 13:03:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1691870477; x=1692475277; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:date:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=ieXyfX669Ncl8XSh/fpJV+/UV6oVsD80j4MCIT+cCTw=; b=EUlfe6hRG8Jv8RB2ezqSdhhAzkEzdC4zMIeneYF1F3w67FQAr55KcWCSLF66clcU7e EbAjIcazcNegpTLqmZo9xSgme9RU2EJmNram1ebDp7ZMQAblxIRzOce01Hg6k4yNyNje 4IMh1TSiV+SUG6npFYcdmHp9D2eERlTo0KVSiMjv0dOeNWMkGnZ6kUdq5E8T9/1NJtUg s7nlhZ9d/K/V4QdrjPowheu1OK1Jv+QhxbyNf0nEDU4QS0YlLaX05fnW6Y9KIIyLFgZS 7px32kpxpz8vhNkwX9KLWijsiYxwJhqTL5tqfM9HXD1ty94RGoEz6sxD7nJgcq+XKhgX tzDw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1691870477; x=1692475277; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:date:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=ieXyfX669Ncl8XSh/fpJV+/UV6oVsD80j4MCIT+cCTw=; b=ZuufMrMSK5c+kZN7sirt7FpnzfKBWVCxKWuOA7e5xANZouc8r8S5Mor43882GC19r9 AFI8rdtLFHvwAzTlmeV3eDPIno/HrzFE/XYcZby6GvjVPSPvdBVHwspOPpry/oB9BFwH Wgp2bb6idw9y44VF/wfPgFFcbjixfhaqVu4n4yvm9SUhfVO+o9u5AKEkzI1MYG1qpxV1 YfAxZtxMW2fbKejaAsTc0JgHZwG4umvaATRfdYGHHGdZpcsjM+dHpPsaYHiwvnHedVDR zNnZs5qmBA9HbXsBo9Eo20m1oEbPDfamRWdakJ9RbnR67ASdxUgN7H43R/YEx0GaQRid xocQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yx2C4tlTALy/Zo70OGB8op2GKTdAkYSaMdTPTL1HFFfR7K/whIc ORR6gYrZcfRJ0Q2SDQSYNlg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFIRvAdmgre7n0YSz78nLQehiv25zR1eqnaRiZkc9+7mAqPZDOoKbUn3Ruy7o8wTaVTzbsUAg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:6095:b0:974:fb94:8067 with SMTP id ht21-20020a170907609500b00974fb948067mr11404726ejc.23.1691870476552; Sat, 12 Aug 2023 13:01:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from krava (ip-94-113-247-30.net.vodafone.cz. [94.113.247.30]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d11-20020aa7c1cb000000b005232ea6a330sm3562079edp.2.2023.08.12.13.01.15 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sat, 12 Aug 2023 13:01:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Jiri Olsa X-Google-Original-From: Jiri Olsa Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2023 22:01:13 +0200 To: Dave Marchevsky Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , Andrii Nakryiko , Martin KaFai Lau , Kernel Team , Tejun Heo , dvernet@meta.com Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] libbpf: Support triple-underscore flavors for kfunc relocation Message-ID: References: <20230811201346.3240403-1-davemarchevsky@fb.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20230811201346.3240403-1-davemarchevsky@fb.com> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lindbergh.monkeyblade.net On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 01:13:45PM -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); > > Signed-off-by: Dave Marchevsky > --- > 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 17883f5a44b9..8949d489a35f 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 = malloc(ext_essent_len + 1); > + memcpy(ext->essent_name, ext->name, ext_essent_len); > + ext->essent_name[ext_essent_len] = '\0'; could we use strndup in here? > + } > + > 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; > @@ -7642,6 +7653,9 @@ static int bpf_object__resolve_ksym_func_btf_id(struct bpf_object *obj, > 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); > + > + if (ext->is_weak) > + return 0; > return -EINVAL; > } > > @@ -8370,6 +8384,11 @@ void bpf_object__close(struct bpf_object *obj) > > zfree(&obj->btf_custom_path); > zfree(&obj->kconfig); > + > + for (i = 0; i < obj->nr_extern; i++) > + if (obj->externs[i].essent_name) > + zfree(&obj->externs[i].essent_name); no need to check the pointer, free will take care of that jirka > + > zfree(&obj->externs); > obj->nr_extern = 0; > > -- > 2.34.1 > >