bpftool: Add bpf_cookie to link output #82
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Commit 82e6b1e ("bpf: Allow to specify user-provided bpf_cookie for BPF perf links") introduced the concept of user specified bpf_cookie, which could be accessed by BPF programs using bpf_get_attach_cookie(). For troubleshooting purposes it is convenient to expose bpf_cookie via bpftool as well, so there is no need to meddle with the target BPF program itself. Implemented using the pid iterator BPF program to actually fetch bpf_cookies, which allows constraining code changes only to bpftool. $ bpftool link 1: type 7 prog 5 bpf_cookie 123 pids bootstrap(81) Signed-off-by: Dmitrii Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>
|
Master branch: 08d4dba |
|
At least one diff in series https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=618079 expired. Closing PR. |
kernel-patches-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 30, 2023
Ilya Leoshkevich says: ==================== v2: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20230128000650.1516334-1-iii@linux.ibm.com/#t v2 -> v3: - Make __arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline static. (Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>) - Support both old- and new- style map definitions in sk_assign. (Alexei) - Trim DENYLIST.s390x. (Alexei) - Adjust s390x vmlinux path in vmtest.sh. - Drop merged fixes. v1: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20230125213817.1424447-1-iii@linux.ibm.com/#t v1 -> v2: - Fix core_read_macros, sk_assign, test_profiler, test_bpffs (24/31; I'm not quite happy with the fix, but don't have better ideas), and xdp_synproxy. (Andrii) - Prettify liburandom_read and verify_pkcs7_sig fixes. (Andrii) - Fix bpf_usdt_arg using barrier_var(); prettify barrier_var(). (Andrii) - Change BPF_MAX_TRAMP_LINKS to enum and query it using BTF. (Andrii) - Improve bpf_jit_supports_kfunc_call() description. (Alexei) - Always check sign_extend() return value. - Cc: Alexander Gordeev. Hi, This series implements poke, trampoline, kfunc, and mixing subprogs and tailcalls on s390x. The following failures still remain: #82 get_stack_raw_tp:FAIL get_stack_print_output:FAIL:user_stack corrupted user stack Known issue: We cannot reliably unwind userspace on s390x without DWARF. #101 ksyms_module:FAIL address of kernel function bpf_testmod_test_mod_kfunc is out of range Known issue: Kernel and modules are too far away from each other on s390x. #190 stacktrace_build_id:FAIL Known issue: We cannot reliably unwind userspace on s390x without DWARF. #281 xdp_metadata:FAIL See patch 6. None of these seem to be due to the new changes. Best regards, Ilya ==================== Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 27, 2023
With latest upstream llvm18, the following test cases failed: $ ./test_progs -j #13/2 bpf_cookie/multi_kprobe_link_api:FAIL #13/3 bpf_cookie/multi_kprobe_attach_api:FAIL #13 bpf_cookie:FAIL #77 fentry_fexit:FAIL #78/1 fentry_test/fentry:FAIL #78 fentry_test:FAIL #82/1 fexit_test/fexit:FAIL #82 fexit_test:FAIL #112/1 kprobe_multi_test/skel_api:FAIL #112/2 kprobe_multi_test/link_api_addrs:FAIL ... #112 kprobe_multi_test:FAIL #356/17 test_global_funcs/global_func17:FAIL #356 test_global_funcs:FAIL Further analysis shows llvm upstream patch [1] is responsible for the above failures. For example, for function bpf_fentry_test7() in net/bpf/test_run.c, without [1], the asm code is: 0000000000000400 <bpf_fentry_test7>: 400: f3 0f 1e fa endbr64 404: e8 00 00 00 00 callq 0x409 <bpf_fentry_test7+0x9> 409: 48 89 f8 movq %rdi, %rax 40c: c3 retq 40d: 0f 1f 00 nopl (%rax) and with [1], the asm code is: 0000000000005d20 <bpf_fentry_test7.specialized.1>: 5d20: e8 00 00 00 00 callq 0x5d25 <bpf_fentry_test7.specialized.1+0x5> 5d25: c3 retq and <bpf_fentry_test7.specialized.1> is called instead of <bpf_fentry_test7> and this caused test failures for #13/#77 etc. except #356. For test case #356/17, with [1] (progs/test_global_func17.c)), the main prog looks like: 0000000000000000 <global_func17>: 0: b4 00 00 00 2a 00 00 00 w0 = 0x2a 1: 95 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 exit which passed verification while the test itself expects a verification failure. Let us add 'barrier_var' style asm code in both places to prevent function specialization which caused selftests failure. [1] llvm/llvm-project#72903 Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 27, 2023
With latest upstream llvm18, the following test cases failed: $ ./test_progs -j #13/2 bpf_cookie/multi_kprobe_link_api:FAIL #13/3 bpf_cookie/multi_kprobe_attach_api:FAIL #13 bpf_cookie:FAIL #77 fentry_fexit:FAIL #78/1 fentry_test/fentry:FAIL #78 fentry_test:FAIL #82/1 fexit_test/fexit:FAIL #82 fexit_test:FAIL #112/1 kprobe_multi_test/skel_api:FAIL #112/2 kprobe_multi_test/link_api_addrs:FAIL [...] #112 kprobe_multi_test:FAIL #356/17 test_global_funcs/global_func17:FAIL #356 test_global_funcs:FAIL Further analysis shows llvm upstream patch [1] is responsible for the above failures. For example, for function bpf_fentry_test7() in net/bpf/test_run.c, without [1], the asm code is: 0000000000000400 <bpf_fentry_test7>: 400: f3 0f 1e fa endbr64 404: e8 00 00 00 00 callq 0x409 <bpf_fentry_test7+0x9> 409: 48 89 f8 movq %rdi, %rax 40c: c3 retq 40d: 0f 1f 00 nopl (%rax) ... and with [1], the asm code is: 0000000000005d20 <bpf_fentry_test7.specialized.1>: 5d20: e8 00 00 00 00 callq 0x5d25 <bpf_fentry_test7.specialized.1+0x5> 5d25: c3 retq ... and <bpf_fentry_test7.specialized.1> is called instead of <bpf_fentry_test7> and this caused test failures for #13/#77 etc. except #356. For test case #356/17, with [1] (progs/test_global_func17.c)), the main prog looks like: 0000000000000000 <global_func17>: 0: b4 00 00 00 2a 00 00 00 w0 = 0x2a 1: 95 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 exit ... which passed verification while the test itself expects a verification failure. Let us add 'barrier_var' style asm code in both places to prevent function specialization which caused selftests failure. [1] llvm/llvm-project#72903 Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20231127050342.1945270-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 19, 2023
We can see that "Short form of movsx, dst_reg = (s8,s16,s32)src_reg" in include/linux/filter.h, additionally, for BPF_ALU64 the value of the destination register is unchanged whereas for BPF_ALU the upper 32 bits of the destination register are zeroed, so it should clear the upper 32 bits for BPF_ALU. [root@linux fedora]# echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable [root@linux fedora]# modprobe test_bpf Before: test_bpf: #81 ALU_MOVSX | BPF_B jited:1 ret 2 != 1 (0x2 != 0x1)FAIL (1 times) test_bpf: #82 ALU_MOVSX | BPF_H jited:1 ret 2 != 1 (0x2 != 0x1)FAIL (1 times) After: test_bpf: #81 ALU_MOVSX | BPF_B jited:1 6 PASS test_bpf: #82 ALU_MOVSX | BPF_H jited:1 6 PASS By the way, the bpf selftest case "./test_progs -t verifier_movsx" can also be fixed with this patch. Fixes: f48012f ("LoongArch: BPF: Support sign-extension mov instructions") Acked-by: Hengqi Chen <hengqi.chen@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn> Signed-off-by: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@loongson.cn>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 5, 2024
Recent additions in BPF like cpu v4 instructions, test_bpf module exhibits the following failures: test_bpf: #82 ALU_MOVSX | BPF_B jited:1 ret 2 != 1 (0x2 != 0x1)FAIL (1 times) test_bpf: #83 ALU_MOVSX | BPF_H jited:1 ret 2 != 1 (0x2 != 0x1)FAIL (1 times) test_bpf: #84 ALU64_MOVSX | BPF_B jited:1 ret 2 != 1 (0x2 != 0x1)FAIL (1 times) test_bpf: #85 ALU64_MOVSX | BPF_H jited:1 ret 2 != 1 (0x2 != 0x1)FAIL (1 times) test_bpf: #86 ALU64_MOVSX | BPF_W jited:1 ret 2 != 1 (0x2 != 0x1)FAIL (1 times) test_bpf: #165 ALU_SDIV_X: -6 / 2 = -3 jited:1 ret 2147483645 != -3 (0x7ffffffd != 0xfffffffd)FAIL (1 times) test_bpf: #166 ALU_SDIV_K: -6 / 2 = -3 jited:1 ret 2147483645 != -3 (0x7ffffffd != 0xfffffffd)FAIL (1 times) test_bpf: #169 ALU_SMOD_X: -7 % 2 = -1 jited:1 ret 1 != -1 (0x1 != 0xffffffff)FAIL (1 times) test_bpf: #170 ALU_SMOD_K: -7 % 2 = -1 jited:1 ret 1 != -1 (0x1 != 0xffffffff)FAIL (1 times) test_bpf: #172 ALU64_SMOD_K: -7 % 2 = -1 jited:1 ret 1 != -1 (0x1 != 0xffffffff)FAIL (1 times) test_bpf: #313 BSWAP 16: 0x0123456789abcdef -> 0xefcd eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported jited:0 301 PASS test_bpf: #314 BSWAP 32: 0x0123456789abcdef -> 0xefcdab89 eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported jited:0 555 PASS test_bpf: #315 BSWAP 64: 0x0123456789abcdef -> 0x67452301 eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported jited:0 268 PASS test_bpf: #316 BSWAP 64: 0x0123456789abcdef >> 32 -> 0xefcdab89 eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported jited:0 269 PASS test_bpf: #317 BSWAP 16: 0xfedcba9876543210 -> 0x1032 eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported jited:0 460 PASS test_bpf: #318 BSWAP 32: 0xfedcba9876543210 -> 0x10325476 eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported jited:0 320 PASS test_bpf: #319 BSWAP 64: 0xfedcba9876543210 -> 0x98badcfe eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported jited:0 222 PASS test_bpf: #320 BSWAP 64: 0xfedcba9876543210 >> 32 -> 0x10325476 eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported jited:0 273 PASS test_bpf: #344 BPF_LDX_MEMSX | BPF_B eBPF filter opcode 0091 (@5) unsupported jited:0 432 PASS test_bpf: #345 BPF_LDX_MEMSX | BPF_H eBPF filter opcode 0089 (@5) unsupported jited:0 381 PASS test_bpf: #346 BPF_LDX_MEMSX | BPF_W eBPF filter opcode 0081 (@5) unsupported jited:0 505 PASS test_bpf: #490 JMP32_JA: Unconditional jump: if (true) return 1 eBPF filter opcode 0006 (@1) unsupported jited:0 261 PASS test_bpf: Summary: 1040 PASSED, 10 FAILED, [924/1038 JIT'ed] Fix them by adding missing processing. Fixes: daabb2b ("bpf/tests: add tests for cpuv4 instructions") Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Pull request for series with
subject: bpftool: Add bpf_cookie to link output
version: 4
url: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=618079