On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 11:10 AM James Hilliard james.hilliard1@gmail.com wrote:

The bpf_legacy.h header uses llvm specific load functions, add GCC compatible variants as well to fix tests using these functions under GCC.

Signed-off-by: James Hilliard james.hilliard1@gmail.com Cc: Jose E. Marchesi jose.marchesi@oracle.com Cc: David Faust david.faust@oracle.com

---

Please use [PATCH bpf-next] prefix to target patches for bpf-next tree. This helps some of our automation.

tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_legacy.h | 10 ++++++++++ 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_legacy.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_legacy.h index 845209581440..256c2a90aa20 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_legacy.h +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_legacy.h @@ -2,6 +2,15 @@ #ifndef __BPF_LEGACY__ #define __BPF_LEGACY__

+#if __GNUC__ && !__clang__ +/* Functions to emit BPF_LD_ABS and BPF_LD_IND instructions. We

• • provide the "standard" names as synonyms of the corresponding GCC
• • builtins. Note how the SKB argument is ignored.
• */

+#define load_byte(skb,off) __builtin_bpf_load_byte((off)) +#define load_half(skb,off) __builtin_bpf_load_half((off)) +#define load_word(skb,off) __builtin_bpf_load_word((off))

added space between skb, and off. And we don't need those extra () around off, right? I stripped them away, but let me know if that's wrong.

+#else /* llvm builtin functions that eBPF C program may use to

• emit BPF_LD_ABS and BPF_LD_IND instructions

*/ @@ -11,6 +20,7 @@ unsigned long long load_half(void *skb, unsigned long long off) asm("llvm.bpf.load.half"); unsigned long long load_word(void *skb, unsigned long long off) asm("llvm.bpf.load.word"); +#endif

#endif

-- 2.34.1