diff options
author | Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> | 2023-04-18 22:45:11 +0300 |
---|---|---|
committer | Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> | 2023-04-18 22:45:11 +0300 |
commit | 276dcdd1a8f33047524dd0ae517290f0842fe4b8 (patch) | |
tree | c069a1e9e77fac7fa75e3d6e249d3cf60e82a219 /tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs | |
parent | 49859de997c3115b85544bce6b6ceab60a7fabc4 (diff) | |
parent | 94dccba7952072ce448a3278c66405fbb2a44ec5 (diff) | |
download | linux-276dcdd1a8f33047524dd0ae517290f0842fe4b8.tar.xz |
Merge branch 'Provide bpf_for() and bpf_for_each() by libbpf'
Andrii Nakryiko says:
====================
This patch set moves bpf_for(), bpf_for_each(), and bpf_repeat() macros from
selftests-internal bpf_misc.h header to libbpf-provided bpf_helpers.h header.
To do this in a way to allow users to feature-detect and guard such
bpf_for()/bpf_for_each() uses on old kernels we also extend libbpf to improve
unresolved kfunc calls handling and reporting. This lets us mark
bpf_iter_num_{new,next,destroy}() declarations as __weak, and thus not fail
program loading outright if such kfuncs are missing on the host kernel.
Patches #1 and #2 do some simple clean ups and logging improvements. Patch #3
adds kfunc call poisoning and log fixup logic and is the hear of this patch
set, effectively. Patch #4 adds selftest for this logic. Patches #4 and #5
move bpf_for()/bpf_for_each()/bpf_repeat() into bpf_helpers.h header and mark
kfuncs as __weak to allow users to feature-detect and guard their uses.
====================
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs')
-rw-r--r-- | tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_misc.h | 103 | ||||
-rw-r--r-- | tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_log_fixup.c | 10 |
2 files changed, 10 insertions, 103 deletions
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_misc.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_misc.h index 6e3b4903c541..3b307de8dab9 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_misc.h +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_misc.h @@ -121,107 +121,4 @@ /* make it look to compiler like value is read and written */ #define __sink(expr) asm volatile("" : "+g"(expr)) -struct bpf_iter_num; - -extern int bpf_iter_num_new(struct bpf_iter_num *it, int start, int end) __ksym; -extern int *bpf_iter_num_next(struct bpf_iter_num *it) __ksym; -extern void bpf_iter_num_destroy(struct bpf_iter_num *it) __ksym; - -#ifndef bpf_for_each -/* bpf_for_each(iter_type, cur_elem, args...) provides generic construct for - * using BPF open-coded iterators without having to write mundane explicit - * low-level loop logic. Instead, it provides for()-like generic construct - * that can be used pretty naturally. E.g., for some hypothetical cgroup - * iterator, you'd write: - * - * struct cgroup *cg, *parent_cg = <...>; - * - * bpf_for_each(cgroup, cg, parent_cg, CG_ITER_CHILDREN) { - * bpf_printk("Child cgroup id = %d", cg->cgroup_id); - * if (cg->cgroup_id == 123) - * break; - * } - * - * I.e., it looks almost like high-level for each loop in other languages, - * supports continue/break, and is verifiable by BPF verifier. - * - * For iterating integers, the difference betwen bpf_for_each(num, i, N, M) - * and bpf_for(i, N, M) is in that bpf_for() provides additional proof to - * verifier that i is in [N, M) range, and in bpf_for_each() case i is `int - * *`, not just `int`. So for integers bpf_for() is more convenient. - * - * Note: this macro relies on C99 feature of allowing to declare variables - * inside for() loop, bound to for() loop lifetime. It also utilizes GCC - * extension: __attribute__((cleanup(<func>))), supported by both GCC and - * Clang. - */ -#define bpf_for_each(type, cur, args...) for ( \ - /* initialize and define destructor */ \ - struct bpf_iter_##type ___it __attribute__((aligned(8), /* enforce, just in case */, \ - cleanup(bpf_iter_##type##_destroy))), \ - /* ___p pointer is just to call bpf_iter_##type##_new() *once* to init ___it */ \ - *___p __attribute__((unused)) = ( \ - bpf_iter_##type##_new(&___it, ##args), \ - /* this is a workaround for Clang bug: it currently doesn't emit BTF */ \ - /* for bpf_iter_##type##_destroy() when used from cleanup() attribute */ \ - (void)bpf_iter_##type##_destroy, (void *)0); \ - /* iteration and termination check */ \ - (((cur) = bpf_iter_##type##_next(&___it))); \ -) -#endif /* bpf_for_each */ - -#ifndef bpf_for -/* bpf_for(i, start, end) implements a for()-like looping construct that sets - * provided integer variable *i* to values starting from *start* through, - * but not including, *end*. It also proves to BPF verifier that *i* belongs - * to range [start, end), so this can be used for accessing arrays without - * extra checks. - * - * Note: *start* and *end* are assumed to be expressions with no side effects - * and whose values do not change throughout bpf_for() loop execution. They do - * not have to be statically known or constant, though. - * - * Note: similarly to bpf_for_each(), it relies on C99 feature of declaring for() - * loop bound variables and cleanup attribute, supported by GCC and Clang. - */ -#define bpf_for(i, start, end) for ( \ - /* initialize and define destructor */ \ - struct bpf_iter_num ___it __attribute__((aligned(8), /* enforce, just in case */ \ - cleanup(bpf_iter_num_destroy))), \ - /* ___p pointer is necessary to call bpf_iter_num_new() *once* to init ___it */ \ - *___p __attribute__((unused)) = ( \ - bpf_iter_num_new(&___it, (start), (end)), \ - /* this is a workaround for Clang bug: it currently doesn't emit BTF */ \ - /* for bpf_iter_num_destroy() when used from cleanup() attribute */ \ - (void)bpf_iter_num_destroy, (void *)0); \ - ({ \ - /* iteration step */ \ - int *___t = bpf_iter_num_next(&___it); \ - /* termination and bounds check */ \ - (___t && ((i) = *___t, (i) >= (start) && (i) < (end))); \ - }); \ -) -#endif /* bpf_for */ - -#ifndef bpf_repeat -/* bpf_repeat(N) performs N iterations without exposing iteration number - * - * Note: similarly to bpf_for_each(), it relies on C99 feature of declaring for() - * loop bound variables and cleanup attribute, supported by GCC and Clang. - */ -#define bpf_repeat(N) for ( \ - /* initialize and define destructor */ \ - struct bpf_iter_num ___it __attribute__((aligned(8), /* enforce, just in case */ \ - cleanup(bpf_iter_num_destroy))), \ - /* ___p pointer is necessary to call bpf_iter_num_new() *once* to init ___it */ \ - *___p __attribute__((unused)) = ( \ - bpf_iter_num_new(&___it, 0, (N)), \ - /* this is a workaround for Clang bug: it currently doesn't emit BTF */ \ - /* for bpf_iter_num_destroy() when used from cleanup() attribute */ \ - (void)bpf_iter_num_destroy, (void *)0); \ - bpf_iter_num_next(&___it); \ - /* nothing here */ \ -) -#endif /* bpf_repeat */ - #endif diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_log_fixup.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_log_fixup.c index 60450cb0e72e..1bd48feaaa42 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_log_fixup.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_log_fixup.c @@ -61,4 +61,14 @@ int use_missing_map(const void *ctx) return value != NULL; } +extern int bpf_nonexistent_kfunc(void) __ksym __weak; + +SEC("?raw_tp/sys_enter") +int use_missing_kfunc(const void *ctx) +{ + bpf_nonexistent_kfunc(); + + return 0; +} + char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL"; |