Re: FAILED unresolved symbol vfs_truncate on arm64 with LLVM

Sedat Dilek
2021-02-10T18:30:05Z

On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 7:20 PM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 5:26 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 02:00:29PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> > > > > > I'm still trying to build the kernel.. however ;-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > patch below adds the ftrace check only for static functions
> > > > > > and lets the externa go through.. but as you said, in this
> > > > > > case we'll need to figure out the 'notrace' and other checks
> > > > > > ftrace is doing
> > > > > >
> > > > > > jirka
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > diff --git a/btf_encoder.c b/btf_encoder.c
> > > > > > index b124ec20a689..4d147406cfa5 100644
> > > > > > --- a/btf_encoder.c
> > > > > > +++ b/btf_encoder.c
> > > > > > @@ -734,7 +734,7 @@ int cu__encode_btf(struct cu *cu, int verbose, bool force,
> > > > > > continue;
> > > > > > if (!has_arg_names(cu, &fn->proto))
> > > > > > continue;
> > > > > > - if (functions_cnt) {
> > > > > > + if (!fn->external && functions_cnt) {
> > > > >
> > > > > I wouldn't trust DWARF, honestly. Wouldn't checking GLOBAL vs LOCAL
> > > > > FUNC ELF symbol be more reliable?
> > > >
> > > > that'd mean extra bsearch on each processed function,
> > > > on the ther hand, we'are already slow ;-) I'll check
> > > > how big the slowdown would be
> > > >
> > >
> > > We currently record addresses and do binary search. Now we need to
> > > record address + size and still do binary search with a slightly
> > > different semantics (find closest entry >= addr). Then just check that
> > > it overlaps, taking into account the length of the function code. It
> > > shouldn't result in a noticeable slowdown. Might be actually faster,
> > > because we might avoid callback function call costs.
> >
> > I'm still not sure how to handle the external check for function via elf,
>
> I might be missing something, but don't all functions have
> corresponding ELF symbols? And then symbol can have LOCAL or GLOBAL
> type. LOCALs are supposed to be not visible outside respective CUs (so
> correspond to static functions), while GLOBALs are extern-able funcs.
> So if func's symbol is GLOBAL, it should be ok to assume it's
> attachable (not inlined, at least).
>
> > but below is change for checking that ftrace addrs are within elf functions
> >
> > seems to work in my tests, I'll run some more tests and send full patch
>
> It seems unnecessarily convoluted. I was thinking about something like
> this (the diff will totally be screwed up by gmail, and I haven't even
> compiled it):
>

Now, I know why vfs_truncate is so problematic.
Let's split it: "vfs + trunc + ate".
Eaten by Gmail :-).

- Sedat -

> diff --git a/btf_encoder.c b/btf_encoder.c
> index b124ec20a689..8162b238bd43 100644
> --- a/btf_encoder.c
> +++ b/btf_encoder.c
> @@ -236,6 +236,23 @@ get_kmod_addrs(struct btf_elf *btfe, __u64
> **paddrs, __u64 *pcount)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +struct func_seg { __u64 start; __u64 end; };
> +
> +static int func_exists(struct func_seg *segs, size_t len, __u64 addr)
> +{
> + size_t l = 0, r = len - 1, m;
> +
> + while (l < r) {
> + m = l + (r - l + 1) / 2;
> + if (segs[m].start <= addr)
> + l = m;
> + else
> + r = m - 1;
> + }
> +
> + return segs[l].start <= addr && addr < segs[l].end;
> +}
> +
> static int setup_functions(struct btf_elf *btfe, struct funcs_layout *fl)
> {
> __u64 *addrs, count, i;
> @@ -286,7 +303,7 @@ static int setup_functions(struct btf_elf *btfe,
> struct funcs_layout *fl)
> __u64 addr = kmod ? func->addr + func->sh_addr : func->addr;
>
> /* Make sure function is within ftrace addresses. */
> - if (bsearch(&addr, addrs, count, sizeof(addrs[0]), addrs_cmp)) {
> + if (func_exists(addrs, count, addr))
> /*
> * We iterate over sorted array, so we can easily skip
> * not valid item and move following valid field into
>
>
> So the idea is to use address segments and check whether there is a
> segment that overlaps with a given address by first binary searching
> for a segment with the largest starting address that is <= addr. And
> then just confirming that segment does overlap with the requested
> address.
>
> WDYT?
>
> >
> > jirka
> >
> >
> > ---
> > diff --git a/btf_encoder.c b/btf_encoder.c
> > index b124ec20a689..548a12847f99 100644
> > --- a/btf_encoder.c
> > +++ b/btf_encoder.c
> > @@ -36,6 +36,7 @@ struct funcs_layout {
> > struct elf_function {
> > const char *name;
> > unsigned long addr;
> > + unsigned long end;
> > unsigned long sh_addr;
> > bool generated;
> > };
> > @@ -44,7 +45,7 @@ static struct elf_function *functions;
> > static int functions_alloc;
> > static int functions_cnt;
> >
> > -static int functions_cmp(const void *_a, const void *_b)
> > +static int functions_cmp_name(const void *_a, const void *_b)
> > {
> > const struct elf_function *a = _a;
> > const struct elf_function *b = _b;
> > @@ -52,6 +53,16 @@ static int functions_cmp(const void *_a, const void *_b)
> > return strcmp(a->name, b->name);
> > }
> >
> > +static int functions_cmp_addr(const void *_a, const void *_b)
> > +{
> > + const struct elf_function *a = _a;
> > + const struct elf_function *b = _b;
> > +
> > + if (a->addr == b->addr)
> > + return 0;
> > + return a->addr < b->addr ? -1 : 1;
> > +}
> > +
> > static void delete_functions(void)
> > {
> > free(functions);
> > @@ -98,6 +109,7 @@ static int collect_function(struct btf_elf *btfe, GElf_Sym *sym,
> >
> > functions[functions_cnt].name = name;
> > functions[functions_cnt].addr = elf_sym__value(sym);
> > + functions[functions_cnt].end = (__u64) -1;
> > functions[functions_cnt].sh_addr = sh.sh_addr;
> > functions[functions_cnt].generated = false;
> > functions_cnt++;
> > @@ -236,9 +248,25 @@ get_kmod_addrs(struct btf_elf *btfe, __u64 **paddrs, __u64 *pcount)
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > +static bool is_addr_in_func(__u64 addr, struct elf_function *func, bool kmod)
> > +{
> > + /*
> > + * For vmlinux image both addrs[x] and functions[x]::addr
> > + * values are final address and are comparable.
> > + *
> > + * For kernel module addrs[x] is final address, but
> > + * functions[x]::addr is relative address within section
> > + * and needs to be relocated by adding sh_addr.
> > + */
> > + __u64 start = kmod ? func->addr + func->sh_addr : func->addr;
> > + __u64 end = kmod ? func->end+ func->sh_addr : func->end;
> > +
> > + return start <= addr && addr < end;
> > +}
> > +
> > static int setup_functions(struct btf_elf *btfe, struct funcs_layout *fl)
> > {
> > - __u64 *addrs, count, i;
> > + __u64 *addrs, count, i_func, i_addr;
> > int functions_valid = 0;
> > bool kmod = false;
> >
> > @@ -266,43 +294,62 @@ static int setup_functions(struct btf_elf *btfe, struct funcs_layout *fl)
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > - qsort(addrs, count, sizeof(addrs[0]), addrs_cmp);
> > - qsort(functions, functions_cnt, sizeof(functions[0]), functions_cmp);
> > -
> > /*
> > - * Let's got through all collected functions and filter
> > - * out those that are not in ftrace.
> > + * Sort both functions and addrs so we can iterate
> > + * both of them simultaneously and found matching
> > + * func/addr pairs.
> > */
> > - for (i = 0; i < functions_cnt; i++) {
> > - struct elf_function *func = &functions[i];
> > - /*
> > - * For vmlinux image both addrs[x] and functions[x]::addr
> > - * values are final address and are comparable.
> > - *
> > - * For kernel module addrs[x] is final address, but
> > - * functions[x]::addr is relative address within section
> > - * and needs to be relocated by adding sh_addr.
> > - */
> > - __u64 addr = kmod ? func->addr + func->sh_addr : func->addr;
> > + qsort(addrs, count, sizeof(addrs[0]), addrs_cmp);
> > + qsort(functions, functions_cnt, sizeof(functions[0]), functions_cmp_addr);
> > +
> > + for (i_func = 0, i_addr = 0; i_func < functions_cnt; i_func++) {
> > + struct elf_function *func = &functions[i_func];
> > +
> > + if (i_func + 1 < functions_cnt)
> > + func->end = functions[i_func + 1].addr;
> > +
> > + for (; i_addr < count; i_addr++) {
> > + __u64 addr = addrs[i_addr];
> > +
> > + /* Functions are ahead, catch up with addrs. */
> > + if (addr < func->addr)
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + /* Addr is within function - mark function as valid. */
> > + if (is_addr_in_func(addr, func, kmod)) {
> > + /*
> > + * We iterate over sorted array, so we can easily skip
> > + * not valid item and move following valid field into
> > + * its place, and still keep the 'new' array sorted.
> > + */
> > + if (i_func != functions_valid)
> > + functions[functions_valid] = functions[i_func];
> > + functions_valid++;
> > + i_addr++;
> > + }
> >
> > - /* Make sure function is within ftrace addresses. */
> > - if (bsearch(&addr, addrs, count, sizeof(addrs[0]), addrs_cmp)) {
> > /*
> > - * We iterate over sorted array, so we can easily skip
> > - * not valid item and move following valid field into
> > - * its place, and still keep the 'new' array sorted.
> > + * Addrs are ahead, catch up with functions, or we just
> > + * found valid function and want to move to another.
> > */
> > - if (i != functions_valid)
> > - functions[functions_valid] = functions[i];
> > - functions_valid++;
> > + break;
> > }
> > }
> >
> > + if (btf_elf__verbose) {
> > + printf("Found %d functions out of %d symbols and %llu ftrace addresses.\n",
> > + functions_valid, functions_cnt, count);
> > + }
> > +
> > functions_cnt = functions_valid;
> > free(addrs);
> >
> > - if (btf_elf__verbose)
> > - printf("Found %d functions!\n", functions_cnt);
> > + /*
> > + * And finaly sort 'valid' functions by name,
> > + * so find_function can be used.
> > + */
> > + qsort(functions, functions_cnt, sizeof(functions[0]), functions_cmp_name);
> > +
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -312,7 +359,7 @@ static struct elf_function *find_function(const struct btf_elf *btfe,
> > struct elf_function key = { .name = name };
> >
> > return bsearch(&key, functions, functions_cnt, sizeof(functions[0]),
> > - functions_cmp);
> > + functions_cmp_name);
> > }
> >
> > static bool btf_name_char_ok(char c, bool first)
> >
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clang Built Linux" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clang-built-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/clang-built-linux/CAEf4BzbzquqsA5%3D_UqDukScuoGLfDhZiiXs_sgYBuNUvTBuV6w%40mail.gmail.com.