Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1735879 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-09-20 18:20 +0200 |
| Last post | 2017-09-20 23:30 +0200 |
| Articles | 4 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
[PATCH v4 1/4] samples/bpf: Use getppid instead of getpgrp for array map stress Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com> - 2017-09-20 18:20 +0200
[PATCH v4 3/4] samples/bpf: Fix pt_regs issues when cross-compiling Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com> - 2017-09-20 18:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] samples/bpf: Fix pt_regs issues when cross-compiling Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> - 2017-09-20 23:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] samples/bpf: Use getppid instead of getpgrp for array map stress Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> - 2017-09-20 23:30 +0200
| From | Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-20 18:20 +0200 |
| Subject | [PATCH v4 1/4] samples/bpf: Use getppid instead of getpgrp for array map stress |
| Message-ID | <urPTb-5ov-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
When cross-compiling the bpf sample map_perf_test for aarch64, I find that
__NR_getpgrp is undefined. This causes build errors. This syscall is deprecated
and requires defining __ARCH_WANT_SYSCALL_DEPRECATED. To avoid having to define
that, just use a different syscall (getppid) for the array map stress test.
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
---
samples/bpf/map_perf_test_kern.c | 2 +-
samples/bpf/map_perf_test_user.c | 2 +-
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/samples/bpf/map_perf_test_kern.c b/samples/bpf/map_perf_test_kern.c
index 098c857f1eda..2b2ffb97018b 100644
--- a/samples/bpf/map_perf_test_kern.c
+++ b/samples/bpf/map_perf_test_kern.c
@@ -266,7 +266,7 @@ int stress_hash_map_lookup(struct pt_regs *ctx)
return 0;
}
-SEC("kprobe/sys_getpgrp")
+SEC("kprobe/sys_getppid")
int stress_array_map_lookup(struct pt_regs *ctx)
{
u32 key = 1, i;
diff --git a/samples/bpf/map_perf_test_user.c b/samples/bpf/map_perf_test_user.c
index f388254896f6..a0310fc70057 100644
--- a/samples/bpf/map_perf_test_user.c
+++ b/samples/bpf/map_perf_test_user.c
@@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ static void test_array_lookup(int cpu)
start_time = time_get_ns();
for (i = 0; i < max_cnt; i++)
- syscall(__NR_getpgrp, 0);
+ syscall(__NR_getppid, 0);
printf("%d:array_lookup %lld lookups per sec\n",
cpu, max_cnt * 1000000000ll * 64 / (time_get_ns() - start_time));
}
--
2.14.1.821.g8fa685d3b7-goog
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-20 18:20 +0200 |
| Subject | [PATCH v4 3/4] samples/bpf: Fix pt_regs issues when cross-compiling |
| Message-ID | <urPTc-5ov-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1735879 |
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.
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
---
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
--
2.14.1.821.g8fa685d3b7-goog
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-20 23:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] samples/bpf: Fix pt_regs issues when cross-compiling |
| Message-ID | <urUJb-8w7-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1735880 |
On 09/20/2017 06:11 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote: > 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. > > Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com> Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-20 23:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] samples/bpf: Use getppid instead of getpgrp for array map stress |
| Message-ID | <urUJd-8w7-49@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1735879 |
On 09/20/2017 06:11 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote: > When cross-compiling the bpf sample map_perf_test for aarch64, I find that > __NR_getpgrp is undefined. This causes build errors. This syscall is deprecated > and requires defining __ARCH_WANT_SYSCALL_DEPRECATED. To avoid having to define > that, just use a different syscall (getppid) for the array map stress test. > > Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com> Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web