From: Saket Kumar Bhaskar <skb99@linux.ibm.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org,
hbathini@linux.ibm.com, andrii@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net,
martin.lau@linux.dev, eddyz87@gmail.com, song@kernel.org,
yonghong.song@linux.dev, john.fastabend@gmail.com,
kpsingh@kernel.org, sdf@fomichev.me, haoluo@google.com,
jolsa@kernel.org, shuah@kernel.org, mykolal@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] libbpf: Remove powerpc prefix from syscall function names
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2024 20:22:04 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Zz33lM0rTJBZpaJR@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEf4BzZ9Bz8a_hY-jDkqaYg6Phi9bjvoxbBeVZqcgjYXg4a-mA@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Nov 08, 2024 at 10:43:54AM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 3, 2024 at 9:00 PM Saket Kumar Bhaskar <skb99@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > Since commit 94746890202cf ("powerpc: Don't add __powerpc_ prefix to
> > syscall entry points") drops _powerpc prefix to syscall entry points,
> > even though powerpc now supports syscall wrapper, so /proc/kallsyms
> > have symbols for syscall entry without powerpc prefix(sys_*).
> >
> > For this reason, arch specific prefix for syscall functions in powerpc
> > is dropped.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Saket Kumar Bhaskar <skb99@linux.ibm.com>
> > ---
> > tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 12 +++++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> > index 219facd0e66e..3a370fa37d8a 100644
> > --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> > +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> > @@ -11110,9 +11110,7 @@ static const char *arch_specific_syscall_pfx(void)
> > #elif defined(__riscv)
> > return "riscv";
> > #elif defined(__powerpc__)
> > - return "powerpc";
> > -#elif defined(__powerpc64__)
> > - return "powerpc64";
> > + return "";
> > #else
> > return NULL;
> > #endif
> > @@ -11127,7 +11125,11 @@ int probe_kern_syscall_wrapper(int token_fd)
> > if (!ksys_pfx)
> > return 0;
> >
> > +#if defined(__powerpc__)
> > + snprintf(syscall_name, sizeof(syscall_name), "sys_bpf");
> > +#else
> > snprintf(syscall_name, sizeof(syscall_name), "__%s_sys_bpf", ksys_pfx);
> > +#endif
>
> The problem is that on older versions of kernel it will have this
> prefix, while on newer ones it won't. So to not break anything on old
> kernels, we'd need to do feature detection and pick whether to use
> prefix or not, right?
>
> So it seems like this change needs a bit more work.
>
> pw-bot: cr
>
Hi Andrii,
IMO since both the patches 7e92e01b7245(powerpc: Provide syscall wrapper)
and 94746890202cf(powerpc: Don't add __powerpc_ prefix to syscall entry points)
went into the same kernel version v6.1-rc1, there won't me much kernel
versions that has only one of these patches.
Also, to test more I tried this patch with ARCH_HAS_SYSCALL_WRAPPER disabled,
and it the test passed in this case too.
Thanks,
Saket
> >
> > if (determine_kprobe_perf_type() >= 0) {
> > int pfd;
> > @@ -11272,8 +11274,12 @@ struct bpf_link *bpf_program__attach_ksyscall(const struct bpf_program *prog,
> > * compiler does not know that we have an explicit conditional
> > * as well.
> > */
> > +#if defined(__powerpc__)
> > + snprintf(func_name, sizeof(func_name), "sys_%s", syscall_name);
> > +#else
> > snprintf(func_name, sizeof(func_name), "__%s_sys_%s",
> > arch_specific_syscall_pfx() ? : "", syscall_name);
> > +#endif
> > } else {
> > snprintf(func_name, sizeof(func_name), "__se_sys_%s", syscall_name);
> > }
> > --
> > 2.43.5
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-11-20 14:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-11-04 5:00 [PATCH 0/3] Fix test_bpf_syscall_macro selftest on powerpc Saket Kumar Bhaskar
2024-11-04 5:00 ` [PATCH 1/3] libbpf: Fix accessing the syscall argument " Saket Kumar Bhaskar
2024-11-04 5:00 ` [PATCH 2/3] libbpf: Remove powerpc prefix from syscall function names Saket Kumar Bhaskar
2024-11-08 18:43 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-11-20 14:52 ` Saket Kumar Bhaskar [this message]
2024-11-22 0:00 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2025-01-10 10:49 ` Saket Kumar Bhaskar
2025-01-10 22:29 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2025-01-11 19:53 ` Saket Kumar Bhaskar
2025-01-14 22:40 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2025-01-15 14:15 ` Saket Kumar Bhaskar
2025-01-16 23:19 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-11-04 5:00 ` [PATCH 3/3] selftests/bpf: Define SYS_PREFIX for powerpc Saket Kumar Bhaskar
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=Zz33lM0rTJBZpaJR@linux.ibm.com \
--to=skb99@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=haoluo@google.com \
--cc=hbathini@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=mykolal@fb.com \
--cc=sdf@fomichev.me \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
/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