From patchwork Sun Sep 3 18:25:48 2017 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Joel Fernandes X-Patchwork-Id: 809348 X-Patchwork-Delegate: davem@davemloft.net Return-Path: X-Original-To: patchwork-incoming@ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; spf=none (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=vger.kernel.org (client-ip=209.132.180.67; helo=vger.kernel.org; envelope-from=netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org; receiver=) Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="lEW9UKcS"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3xlhJs61nDz9sDB for ; Mon, 4 Sep 2017 04:26:53 +1000 (AEST) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752945AbdICS0i (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Sep 2017 14:26:38 -0400 Received: from mail-pg0-f44.google.com ([74.125.83.44]:34806 "EHLO mail-pg0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752629AbdICS0I (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Sep 2017 14:26:08 -0400 Received: by mail-pg0-f44.google.com with SMTP id t193so13181324pgc.1 for ; Sun, 03 Sep 2017 11:26:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references; bh=eHfjwX5w/EXC/FwMFQ4dwJii41udQ+7ZPd1paVvhvzg=; b=lEW9UKcSkrvCU9pmRq24A6JWR814XYaqXrYGv5PNdSxMQ27gF+6QRkCAwKnmfI/ceR 86UfumldwvJ31yyolU37mA0wUPNjOd5PGL8S3jAXsja2MkyMwcTl0gN6ZckDOxJNE8Vm HJ4ozeMe2Ly1w1L2F1tfQxhe8hy+ieNIpJT7pOuS019ojSangulFX/FQf0I9VCHdaLNp TEMHWYyXYIVfwgeAe/nbEhwI6/Io5hdeXcHFUoE8dcWR21OQ+SvuZOLM4Zw7cjeGnNpF 3sdfyv1t2nVaBy6+/+YCsbgRHpswFGM/V8903uy4bcsbQrGAHlI/RdHWLM7hU5N/CQc9 OfSg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references; bh=eHfjwX5w/EXC/FwMFQ4dwJii41udQ+7ZPd1paVvhvzg=; b=DeYDIu+izaFQgbLeF7IE+UM/8h7qNORTgZ/VadFGAflU8b27Yt7Tst+Kuyq276tk94 JwQIraQqiGMqlkFxph40XoxAlvGknY//lErCxtNNAWmcHF+FrDsJ3ixyZpbnbwO+Oc7a uKELWz6tDWxHZNYL/ooPywBBYkPit2d6K9vH+T3+39gBFF3oOC9dL9zXEm92sZuR6vVf u7eCnQvpcj94yR5nVLneL8+P76uRQKhsHHbEAklNAww6WY+WoQ1xmePnWwspvfoCCNin PtTjPUacTDks1mB/jn7zJN/Y9gmWgc4eyhOj3H48rx2jOukDRcFTivM/Z3nprkZsAZvP GFcA== X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUjYXnV7cuyZ+qeys1k4QZz3QSR1pyPzFm6fSSHwA2zcokP1dcD1 kXDu7UN/VK1inlin X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADKCNb4ywmauyzZqCOs0Wj5w1pzqjInBzOlx4aV2kUh3P/+SdaZWVgyyE9acBDFnE6m/z3OU0rq7EA== X-Received: by 10.98.194.193 with SMTP id w62mr1579946pfk.246.1504463167492; Sun, 03 Sep 2017 11:26:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from joelaf-glaptop0.roam.corp.google.com (74.sub-70-213-6.myvzw.com. [70.213.6.74]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p64sm7627440pfi.168.2017.09.03.11.26.05 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 03 Sep 2017 11:26:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Joel Fernandes To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Cc: kernel-team@android.com, Juri Lelli , Alison Chaiken , Chenbo Feng , Joel Fernandes , Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , David Miller Subject: [PATCH RFC v3 3/4] samples/bpf: Fix pt_regs issues when cross-compiling Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 11:25:48 -0700 Message-Id: <20170903182549.30866-3-joelaf@google.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.14.1.581.gf28d330327-goog In-Reply-To: <20170903182549.30866-1-joelaf@google.com> References: <20170903182549.30866-1-joelaf@google.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org BPF samples fail to build when cross-compiling for ARM64 because of incorrect pt_regs param selection. This is because clang defines __x86_64__ and bpf_headers thinks we're building for x86. Since clang is building for the BPF target, it shouldn't make assumptions about what target the BPF program is going to run on. To fix this, lets pass ARCH so the header knows which target the BPF program is being compiled for and can use the correct pt_regs code. CC: Alexei Starovoitov CC: Daniel Borkmann Cc: David Miller Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes --- samples/bpf/Makefile | 2 +- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_helpers.h | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- 2 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/samples/bpf/Makefile b/samples/bpf/Makefile index 13f74b67ca44..ebc2ad69b62c 100644 --- a/samples/bpf/Makefile +++ b/samples/bpf/Makefile @@ -230,7 +230,7 @@ $(obj)/%.o: $(src)/%.c $(CLANG) $(NOSTDINC_FLAGS) $(LINUXINCLUDE) $(EXTRA_CFLAGS) -I$(obj) \ -I$(srctree)/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/ \ -D__KERNEL__ -D__ASM_SYSREG_H -Wno-unused-value -Wno-pointer-sign \ - -Wno-compare-distinct-pointer-types \ + -D__TARGET_ARCH_$(ARCH) -Wno-compare-distinct-pointer-types \ -Wno-gnu-variable-sized-type-not-at-end \ -Wno-address-of-packed-member -Wno-tautological-compare \ -Wno-unknown-warning-option \ diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_helpers.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_helpers.h index 36fb9161b34a..4875395b0b52 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_helpers.h +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_helpers.h @@ -109,7 +109,47 @@ static int (*bpf_skb_under_cgroup)(void *ctx, void *map, int index) = static int (*bpf_skb_change_head)(void *, int len, int flags) = (void *) BPF_FUNC_skb_change_head; +/* Scan the ARCH passed in from ARCH env variable (see Makefile) */ +#if defined(__TARGET_ARCH_x86) + #define bpf_target_x86 + #define bpf_target_defined +#elif defined(__TARGET_ARCH_s930x) + #define bpf_target_s930x + #define bpf_target_defined +#elif defined(__TARGET_ARCH_arm64) + #define bpf_target_arm64 + #define bpf_target_defined +#elif defined(__TARGET_ARCH_mips) + #define bpf_target_mips + #define bpf_target_defined +#elif defined(__TARGET_ARCH_powerpc) + #define bpf_target_powerpc + #define bpf_target_defined +#elif defined(__TARGET_ARCH_sparc) + #define bpf_target_sparc + #define bpf_target_defined +#else + #undef bpf_target_defined +#endif + +/* Fall back to what the compiler says */ +#ifndef bpf_target_defined #if defined(__x86_64__) + #define bpf_target_x86 +#elif defined(__s390x__) + #define bpf_target_s930x +#elif defined(__aarch64__) + #define bpf_target_arm64 +#elif defined(__mips__) + #define bpf_target_mips +#elif defined(__powerpc__) + #define bpf_target_powerpc +#elif defined(__sparc__) + #define bpf_target_sparc +#endif +#endif + +#if defined(bpf_target_x86) #define PT_REGS_PARM1(x) ((x)->di) #define PT_REGS_PARM2(x) ((x)->si) @@ -122,7 +162,7 @@ static int (*bpf_skb_change_head)(void *, int len, int flags) = #define PT_REGS_SP(x) ((x)->sp) #define PT_REGS_IP(x) ((x)->ip) -#elif defined(__s390x__) +#elif defined(bpf_target_s390x) #define PT_REGS_PARM1(x) ((x)->gprs[2]) #define PT_REGS_PARM2(x) ((x)->gprs[3]) @@ -135,7 +175,7 @@ static int (*bpf_skb_change_head)(void *, int len, int flags) = #define PT_REGS_SP(x) ((x)->gprs[15]) #define PT_REGS_IP(x) ((x)->psw.addr) -#elif defined(__aarch64__) +#elif defined(bpf_target_arm64) #define PT_REGS_PARM1(x) ((x)->regs[0]) #define PT_REGS_PARM2(x) ((x)->regs[1]) @@ -148,7 +188,7 @@ static int (*bpf_skb_change_head)(void *, int len, int flags) = #define PT_REGS_SP(x) ((x)->sp) #define PT_REGS_IP(x) ((x)->pc) -#elif defined(__mips__) +#elif defined(bpf_target_mips) #define PT_REGS_PARM1(x) ((x)->regs[4]) #define PT_REGS_PARM2(x) ((x)->regs[5]) @@ -161,7 +201,7 @@ static int (*bpf_skb_change_head)(void *, int len, int flags) = #define PT_REGS_SP(x) ((x)->regs[29]) #define PT_REGS_IP(x) ((x)->cp0_epc) -#elif defined(__powerpc__) +#elif defined(bpf_target_powerpc) #define PT_REGS_PARM1(x) ((x)->gpr[3]) #define PT_REGS_PARM2(x) ((x)->gpr[4]) @@ -172,7 +212,7 @@ static int (*bpf_skb_change_head)(void *, int len, int flags) = #define PT_REGS_SP(x) ((x)->sp) #define PT_REGS_IP(x) ((x)->nip) -#elif defined(__sparc__) +#elif defined(bpf_target_sparc) #define PT_REGS_PARM1(x) ((x)->u_regs[UREG_I0]) #define PT_REGS_PARM2(x) ((x)->u_regs[UREG_I1]) @@ -182,6 +222,8 @@ static int (*bpf_skb_change_head)(void *, int len, int flags) = #define PT_REGS_RET(x) ((x)->u_regs[UREG_I7]) #define PT_REGS_RC(x) ((x)->u_regs[UREG_I0]) #define PT_REGS_SP(x) ((x)->u_regs[UREG_FP]) + +/* Should this also be a bpf_target check for the sparc case? */ #if defined(__arch64__) #define PT_REGS_IP(x) ((x)->tpc) #else @@ -190,10 +232,10 @@ static int (*bpf_skb_change_head)(void *, int len, int flags) = #endif -#ifdef __powerpc__ +#ifdef bpf_target_powerpc #define BPF_KPROBE_READ_RET_IP(ip, ctx) ({ (ip) = (ctx)->link; }) #define BPF_KRETPROBE_READ_RET_IP BPF_KPROBE_READ_RET_IP -#elif defined(__sparc__) +#elif bpf_target_sparc #define BPF_KPROBE_READ_RET_IP(ip, ctx) ({ (ip) = PT_REGS_RET(ctx); }) #define BPF_KRETPROBE_READ_RET_IP BPF_KPROBE_READ_RET_IP #else