On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 02:45:11PM -0600, Daniel Xu wrote:
On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 09:53:04PM -0800, Yonghong Song wrote:
On 11/27/23 12:44 AM, Yonghong Song wrote:
On 11/26/23 8:52 PM, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
On Sun, 2023-11-26 at 18:04 -0600, Daniel Xu wrote: [...]
Tbh I'm not sure. This test passes with preserve_static_offset because it suppresses preserve_access_index. In general clang translates bitfield access to a set of IR statements like:
C: struct foo { unsigned _; unsigned a:1; ... }; ... foo->a ...
IR: %a = getelementptr inbounds %struct.foo, ptr %0, i32 0, i32 1 %bf.load = load i8, ptr %a, align 4 %bf.clear = and i8 %bf.load, 1 %bf.cast = zext i8 %bf.clear to i32
With preserve_static_offset the getelementptr+load are replaced by a single statement which is preserved as-is till code generation, thus load with align 4 is preserved.
On the other hand, I'm not sure that clang guarantees that load or stores used for bitfield access would be always aligned according to verifier expectations.
I think we should check if there are some clang knobs that prevent generation of unaligned memory access. I'll take a look.
Is there a reason to prefer fixing in compiler? I'm not opposed to it, but the downside to compiler fix is it takes years to propagate and sprinkles ifdefs into the code.
Would it be possible to have an analogue of BPF_CORE_READ_BITFIELD()?
Well, the contraption below passes verification, tunnel selftest appears to work. I might have messed up some shifts in the macro, though.
I didn't test it. But from high level it should work.
Still, if clang would peek unlucky BYTE_{OFFSET,SIZE} for a particular field access might be unaligned.
clang should pick a sensible BYTE_SIZE/BYTE_OFFSET to meet alignment requirement. This is also required for BPF_CORE_READ_BITFIELD.
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_tunnel_kern.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_tunnel_kern.c index 3065a716544d..41cd913ac7ff 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_tunnel_kern.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_tunnel_kern.c @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ #include "vmlinux.h" #include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h> #include <bpf/bpf_endian.h> +#include <bpf/bpf_core_read.h> #include "bpf_kfuncs.h" #include "bpf_tracing_net.h" @@ -144,6 +145,38 @@ int ip6gretap_get_tunnel(struct __sk_buff *skb) return TC_ACT_OK; } +#define BPF_CORE_WRITE_BITFIELD(s, field, new_val) ({ \ + void *p = (void *)s + __CORE_RELO(s, field, BYTE_OFFSET); \ + unsigned byte_size = __CORE_RELO(s, field, BYTE_SIZE); \ + unsigned lshift = __CORE_RELO(s, field, LSHIFT_U64); \ + unsigned rshift = __CORE_RELO(s, field, RSHIFT_U64); \ + unsigned bit_size = (rshift - lshift); \ + unsigned long long nval, val, hi, lo; \ + \ + asm volatile("" : "=r"(p) : "0"(p)); \
Use asm volatile("" : "+r"(p)) ?
+ \ + switch (byte_size) { \ + case 1: val = *(unsigned char *)p; break; \ + case 2: val = *(unsigned short *)p; break; \ + case 4: val = *(unsigned int *)p; break; \ + case 8: val = *(unsigned long long *)p; break; \ + } \ + hi = val >> (bit_size + rshift); \ + hi <<= bit_size + rshift; \ + lo = val << (bit_size + lshift); \ + lo >>= bit_size + lshift; \ + nval = new_val; \ + nval <<= lshift; \ + nval >>= rshift; \ + val = hi | nval | lo; \ + switch (byte_size) { \ + case 1: *(unsigned char *)p = val; break; \ + case 2: *(unsigned short *)p = val; break; \ + case 4: *(unsigned int *)p = val; break; \ + case 8: *(unsigned long long *)p = val; break; \ + } \ +})
I think this should be put in libbpf public header files but not sure where to put it. bpf_core_read.h although it is core write?
But on the other hand, this is a uapi struct bitfield write, strictly speaking, CORE write is really unnecessary here. It would be great if we can relieve users from dealing with such unnecessary CORE writes. In that sense, for this particular case, I would prefer rewriting the code by using byte-level stores...
or preserve_static_offset to clearly mean to undo bitfield CORE ...
Ok, I will do byte-level rewrite for next revision.
[...]
This patch seems to work: https://pastes.dxuuu.xyz/0glrf9 .
But I don't think it's very pretty. Also I'm seeing on the internet that people are saying the exact layout of bitfields is compiler dependent. So I am wondering if these byte sized writes are correct. For that matter, I am wondering how the GCC generated bitfield accesses line up with clang generated BPF bytecode. Or why uapi contains a bitfield.
WDYT, should I send up v2 with this or should I do one of the other approaches in this thread?
I am ok with any of the approaches.
Thanks, Daniel