Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the net-next tree

Alexei Starovoitov
2018-01-12T16:43:25Z

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 05:21:54PM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 01/12/2018 04:56 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:45:42AM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> >> On 01/12/2018 05:21 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:11:45PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> >>>> From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
> >>>> Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 17:58:54 -0800
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 11:53:55AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> After merging the net-next tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
> >>>>>> allmodconfig) failed like this:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> kernel/bpf/verifier.o: In function `bpf_check':
> >>>>>> verifier.c:(.text+0xd86e): undefined reference to `bpf_patch_call_args'
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Caused by commit
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1ea47e01ad6e ("bpf: add support for bpf_call to interpreter")
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> interacting with commit
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 290af86629b2 ("bpf: introduce BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON config")
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> from the bpf and net trees.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I have just reverted commit 290af86629b2 for today. A better solution
> >>>>>> would be nice (lie fixing this in a merge between the net-next and net
> >>>>>> trees).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> that's due to 'endif' from 290af86629b2 needs to be moved above
> >>>>> bpf_patch_call_args() definition.
> >>>>
> >>>> That doesn't fix it, because then you'd need to expose
> >>>> interpreters_args as well and obviously that can't be right.
> >>>>
> >>>> Instead, we should never call bpf_patch_call_args() when JIT always on
> >>>> is enabled. So if we fail to JIT the subprogs we should fail
> >>>> immediately.
> >>>
> >>> right, as I was trying to say one extra hunk would be needed for net-next.
> >>> I was reading this patch:
> >>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> >>> index a2b211262c25..ca80559c4ec3 100644
> >>> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> >>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> >>> @@ -5267,7 +5267,11 @@ static int fixup_call_args(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
> >>> depth = get_callee_stack_depth(env, insn, i);
> >>> if (depth < 0)
> >>> return depth;
> >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON
> >>> + return -ENOTSUPP;
> >>> +#else
> >>> bpf_patch_call_args(insn, depth);
> >>> +#endif
> >>> }
> >>> return 0;
> >>>
> >>> but below should be fine too.
> >>> Will test it asap.
> >>>
> >>>> This is the net --> net-next merge resolution I am about to use to fix
> >>>> this:
> >>>>
> >>>> ...
> >>>> +static int fixup_call_args(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + struct bpf_prog *prog = env->prog;
> >>>> + struct bpf_insn *insn = prog->insnsi;
> >>>> - int i, depth;
> >>>> ++ int i, depth, err;
> >>>> +
> >>>> - if (env->prog->jit_requested)
> >>>> - if (jit_subprogs(env) == 0)
> >>>> ++ err = 0;
> >>
> >> Looks fine to me. The only thing I was wondering was whether we should
> >> set err = -ENOTSUPP here above, but actually that is unnecessary. Say,
> >> if for some reason we would missed to set prog->jit_requested bit under
> >> CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON, we would return 0 here even if we would have
> >> calls in the prog. But that also means for bpf_prog_load() that right
> >> after bpf_check() returned, we would go into bpf_prog_select_runtime()
> >> since prog->bpf_func is still NULL at that point, and bpf_int_jit_compile()
> >> from there wouldn't do anything either since prog->jit_requested was
> >> not set in the first place, therefore we return with -ENOTSUPP from
> >> there. So the resolution looks fine to me, we can leave it as is.
> >
> > jit_subprogs() can fail, so err = -ENOTSUPP is necessary.
>
> But if jit_subprogs() fails, then the err is propagated at the end of
> the function (the 'return err' I mean).

right.
Also, since we do:
fp->jit_requested = ebpf_jit_enabled();
and
static inline bool ebpf_jit_enabled(void)
{
return bpf_jit_enable && bpf_jit_is_ebpf();
}
and JIT_ALWAYS_ON depends on CONFIG_HAVE_EBPF_JIT
we should be good.