Thread (29 messages) 29 messages, 4 authors, 2021-02-23

Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 08/11] libbpf: support local function pointer relocation

From: Andrii Nakryiko <hidden>
Date: 2021-02-23 08:04:44

On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 12:56 PM Yonghong Song [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
A new relocation RELO_SUBPROG_ADDR is added to capture
local (static) function pointers loaded with ld_imm64
insns. Such ld_imm64 insns are marked with
BPF_PSEUDO_FUNC and will be passed to kernel so
kernel can replace them with proper actual jited
func addresses.

Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <redacted>
---
 tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
index 21a3eedf070d..772c7455f1a2 100644
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
@@ -188,6 +188,7 @@ enum reloc_type {
        RELO_CALL,
        RELO_DATA,
        RELO_EXTERN,
+       RELO_SUBPROG_ADDR,
 };

 struct reloc_desc {
@@ -579,6 +580,11 @@ static bool is_ldimm64(struct bpf_insn *insn)
        return insn->code == (BPF_LD | BPF_IMM | BPF_DW);
 }

+static bool insn_is_pseudo_func(struct bpf_insn *insn)
+{
+       return is_ldimm64(insn) && insn->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_FUNC;
+}
+
 static int
 bpf_object__init_prog(struct bpf_object *obj, struct bpf_program *prog,
                      const char *name, size_t sec_idx, const char *sec_name,
@@ -3406,6 +3412,16 @@ static int bpf_program__record_reloc(struct bpf_program *prog,
                return -LIBBPF_ERRNO__RELOC;
        }

+       if (GELF_ST_BIND(sym->st_info) == STB_LOCAL &&
+           GELF_ST_TYPE(sym->st_info) == STT_SECTION &&
STB_LOCAL + STT_SECTION is a section symbol. But STT_FUNC symbol could
be referenced as well, no? So this is too strict.
+           (!shdr_idx || shdr_idx == obj->efile.text_shndx) &&
this doesn't look right, shdr_idx == 0 is a bad condition and should
be rejected, not accepted.
+           !(sym->st_value % BPF_INSN_SZ)) {
+               reloc_desc->type = RELO_SUBPROG_ADDR;
+               reloc_desc->insn_idx = insn_idx;
+               reloc_desc->sym_off = sym->st_value;
+               return 0;
+       }
+
So see code right after sym_is_extern(sym) check. It checks for valid
shrd_idx, which is good and would be good to use that. After that we
can assume shdr_idx is valid and we can make a simple
obj->efile.text_shndx check then and use that as a signal that this is
SUBPROG_ADDR relocation (instead of deducing that from STT_SECTION).

And !(sym->st_value % BPF_INSN_SZ) should be reported as an error, not
silently skipped. Again, just how BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL does it. That way
it's more user-friendly, if something goes wrong. So it will look like
this:

if (shdr_idx == obj->efile.text_shndx) {
    /* check sym->st_value, pr_warn(), return error */

    reloc_desc->type = RELO_SUBPROG_ADDR;
    ...
    return 0;
}
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
        if (sym_is_extern(sym)) {
                int sym_idx = GELF_R_SYM(rel->r_info);
                int i, n = obj->nr_extern;
@@ -6172,6 +6188,10 @@ bpf_object__relocate_data(struct bpf_object *obj, struct bpf_program *prog)
                        }
                        relo->processed = true;
                        break;
+               case RELO_SUBPROG_ADDR:
+                       insn[0].src_reg = BPF_PSEUDO_FUNC;
BTW, doesn't Clang emit instruction with BPF_PSEUDO_FUNC set properly
already? If not, why not?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+                       /* will be handled as a follow up pass */
+                       break;
                case RELO_CALL:
                        /* will be handled as a follow up pass */
                        break;
@@ -6358,11 +6378,11 @@ bpf_object__reloc_code(struct bpf_object *obj, struct bpf_program *main_prog,

        for (insn_idx = 0; insn_idx < prog->sec_insn_cnt; insn_idx++) {
                insn = &main_prog->insns[prog->sub_insn_off + insn_idx];
-               if (!insn_is_subprog_call(insn))
+               if (!insn_is_subprog_call(insn) && !insn_is_pseudo_func(insn))
                        continue;

                relo = find_prog_insn_relo(prog, insn_idx);
-               if (relo && relo->type != RELO_CALL) {
+               if (relo && relo->type != RELO_CALL && relo->type != RELO_SUBPROG_ADDR) {
                        pr_warn("prog '%s': unexpected relo for insn #%zu, type %d\n",
                                prog->name, insn_idx, relo->type);
                        return -LIBBPF_ERRNO__RELOC;
@@ -6374,8 +6394,22 @@ bpf_object__reloc_code(struct bpf_object *obj, struct bpf_program *main_prog,
                         * call always has imm = -1, but for static functions
                         * relocation is against STT_SECTION and insn->imm
                         * points to a start of a static function
+                        *
+                        * for local func relocation, the imm field encodes
+                        * the byte offset in the corresponding section.
+                        */
+                       if (relo->type == RELO_CALL)
+                               sub_insn_idx = relo->sym_off / BPF_INSN_SZ + insn->imm + 1;
+                       else
+                               sub_insn_idx = relo->sym_off / BPF_INSN_SZ + insn->imm / BPF_INSN_SZ + 1;
+               } else if (insn_is_pseudo_func(insn)) {
+                       /*
+                        * RELO_SUBPROG_ADDR relo is always emitted even if both
+                        * functions are in the same section, so it shouldn't reach here.
                         */
-                       sub_insn_idx = relo->sym_off / BPF_INSN_SZ + insn->imm + 1;
+                       pr_warn("prog '%s': missing relo for insn #%zu, type %d\n",
nit: "missing subprog addr relo" to make it clearer?
+                               prog->name, insn_idx, relo->type);
+                       return -LIBBPF_ERRNO__RELOC;
                } else {
                        /* if subprogram call is to a static function within
                         * the same ELF section, there won't be any relocation
--
2.24.1
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help