On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 11:12 AM Andrii Nakryiko
[off-list ref] wrote:

On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 8:42 PM Hao Luo [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

[...]

quoted

quoted

quoted

-extern const struct rq runqueues __ksym; /* struct type global var. */
+extern const struct rq runqueues __ksym; /* struct type percpu var. */
 extern const int bpf_prog_active __ksym; /* int type global var. */
+extern const unsigned long process_counts __ksym; /* int type percpu var. */

 SEC("raw_tp/sys_enter")
 int handler(const void *ctx)
 {
+       struct rq *rq;
+       unsigned long *count;
+
        out__runqueues = (__u64)&runqueues;
        out__bpf_prog_active = (__u64)&bpf_prog_active;

+       rq = (struct rq *)bpf_per_cpu_ptr(&runqueues, 1);
+       if (rq)
+               out__rq_cpu = rq->cpu;

this is awesome!

Are there any per-cpu variables that are arrays? Would be nice to test
those too.

There are currently per-cpu arrays, but not common. There is a
'pmc_prev_left' in arch/x86, I can add that in this test.

arch-specific variables are bad, because selftests will be failing on
other architectures; let's not do this then.

Yeah, no problem. Though not going to add this arch-specific variable
in the posted patches, I tried array-typed ksyms locally in my test
environment. It worked fine, except that the array size is not
checked. For instance, if there is a percpu array in kernel as

DEFINE_PER_CPU(u32[64], foo);

we can declare a ksym of different size and it passes libbpf checks
and kernel verification.

extern u32 foo[128] __ksyms;

It seems that bpf_core_types_are_compat() doesn't check nr_elem. But
it seems the kernel verifier does check out-of-bounds accesses, so
this may not be a real problem. Just want to list what I saw.

quoted

[...]