| Message ID | 20220530092815.1112406-5-pulehui@huawei.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Delegated to: | BPF |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Support riscv jit to provide | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-2 | success | Logs for Kernel LATEST on ubuntu-latest with llvm-15 |
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-3 | success | Logs for Kernel LATEST on z15 with gcc |
| netdev/tree_selection | success | Clearly marked for bpf-next |
| netdev/fixes_present | success | Fixes tag not required for -next series |
| netdev/subject_prefix | success | Link |
| netdev/cover_letter | success | Series has a cover letter |
| netdev/patch_count | success | Link |
| netdev/header_inline | success | No static functions without inline keyword in header files |
| netdev/build_32bit | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
| netdev/cc_maintainers | success | CCed 14 of 14 maintainers |
| netdev/build_clang | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
| netdev/module_param | success | Was 0 now: 0 |
| netdev/verify_signedoff | success | Signed-off-by tag matches author and committer |
| netdev/check_selftest | success | No net selftest shell script |
| netdev/verify_fixes | success | No Fixes tag |
| netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
| netdev/checkpatch | success | total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 27 lines checked |
| netdev/kdoc | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
| netdev/source_inline | success | Was 0 now: 0 |
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-1 | fail | Logs for Kernel LATEST on ubuntu-latest with gcc |
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-PR | fail | merge-conflict |
On 5/30/22 11:28 AM, Pu Lehui wrote: > The members of bpf_prog_info, which are line_info, jited_line_info, > jited_ksyms and jited_func_lens, store u64 address pointed to the > corresponding memory regions. Memory addresses are conceptually > unsigned, (unsigned long) casting makes more sense, so let's make > a change for conceptual uniformity. > > Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com> > --- > tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c | 9 +++++---- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c > index 5c503096ef43..7beb060d0671 100644 > --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c > +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c > @@ -127,7 +127,8 @@ struct bpf_prog_linfo *bpf_prog_linfo__new(const struct bpf_prog_info *info) > prog_linfo->raw_linfo = malloc(data_sz); > if (!prog_linfo->raw_linfo) > goto err_free; > - memcpy(prog_linfo->raw_linfo, (void *)(long)info->line_info, data_sz); > + memcpy(prog_linfo->raw_linfo, (void *)(unsigned long)info->line_info, > + data_sz); Took in patch 1-3, lgtm, thanks! My question around the cleanups in patch 4-6 ... there are various other such cases e.g. in libbpf, perhaps makes sense to clean all of them up at once and not just the 4 locations in here. Thanks, Daniel
On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 2:03 PM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> wrote: > > On 5/30/22 11:28 AM, Pu Lehui wrote: > > The members of bpf_prog_info, which are line_info, jited_line_info, > > jited_ksyms and jited_func_lens, store u64 address pointed to the > > corresponding memory regions. Memory addresses are conceptually > > unsigned, (unsigned long) casting makes more sense, so let's make > > a change for conceptual uniformity. > > > > Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com> > > --- > > tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c | 9 +++++---- > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c > > index 5c503096ef43..7beb060d0671 100644 > > --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c > > +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c > > @@ -127,7 +127,8 @@ struct bpf_prog_linfo *bpf_prog_linfo__new(const struct bpf_prog_info *info) > > prog_linfo->raw_linfo = malloc(data_sz); > > if (!prog_linfo->raw_linfo) > > goto err_free; > > - memcpy(prog_linfo->raw_linfo, (void *)(long)info->line_info, data_sz); > > + memcpy(prog_linfo->raw_linfo, (void *)(unsigned long)info->line_info, > > + data_sz); > > Took in patch 1-3, lgtm, thanks! My question around the cleanups in patch 4-6 ... > there are various other such cases e.g. in libbpf, perhaps makes sense to clean all > of them up at once and not just the 4 locations in here. if (void *)(long) pattern is wrong, then I guess the best replacement should be (void *)(uintptr_t) ? > > Thanks, > Daniel
On 2022/5/31 5:03, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 5/30/22 11:28 AM, Pu Lehui wrote: >> The members of bpf_prog_info, which are line_info, jited_line_info, >> jited_ksyms and jited_func_lens, store u64 address pointed to the >> corresponding memory regions. Memory addresses are conceptually >> unsigned, (unsigned long) casting makes more sense, so let's make >> a change for conceptual uniformity. >> >> Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com> >> --- >> tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c | 9 +++++---- >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c >> b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c >> index 5c503096ef43..7beb060d0671 100644 >> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c >> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c >> @@ -127,7 +127,8 @@ struct bpf_prog_linfo *bpf_prog_linfo__new(const >> struct bpf_prog_info *info) >> prog_linfo->raw_linfo = malloc(data_sz); >> if (!prog_linfo->raw_linfo) >> goto err_free; >> - memcpy(prog_linfo->raw_linfo, (void *)(long)info->line_info, >> data_sz); >> + memcpy(prog_linfo->raw_linfo, (void *)(unsigned >> long)info->line_info, >> + data_sz); > > Took in patch 1-3, lgtm, thanks! My question around the cleanups in > patch 4-6 ... > there are various other such cases e.g. in libbpf, perhaps makes sense > to clean all > of them up at once and not just the 4 locations in here. > sorry for reply so late, I will take this soon. > Thanks, > Daniel > .
On 2022/6/4 5:03, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 2:03 PM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> wrote: >> >> On 5/30/22 11:28 AM, Pu Lehui wrote: >>> The members of bpf_prog_info, which are line_info, jited_line_info, >>> jited_ksyms and jited_func_lens, store u64 address pointed to the >>> corresponding memory regions. Memory addresses are conceptually >>> unsigned, (unsigned long) casting makes more sense, so let's make >>> a change for conceptual uniformity. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com> >>> --- >>> tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c | 9 +++++---- >>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c >>> index 5c503096ef43..7beb060d0671 100644 >>> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c >>> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c >>> @@ -127,7 +127,8 @@ struct bpf_prog_linfo *bpf_prog_linfo__new(const struct bpf_prog_info *info) >>> prog_linfo->raw_linfo = malloc(data_sz); >>> if (!prog_linfo->raw_linfo) >>> goto err_free; >>> - memcpy(prog_linfo->raw_linfo, (void *)(long)info->line_info, data_sz); >>> + memcpy(prog_linfo->raw_linfo, (void *)(unsigned long)info->line_info, >>> + data_sz); >> >> Took in patch 1-3, lgtm, thanks! My question around the cleanups in patch 4-6 ... >> there are various other such cases e.g. in libbpf, perhaps makes sense to clean all >> of them up at once and not just the 4 locations in here. > > if (void *)(long) pattern is wrong, then I guess the best replacement > should be (void *)(uintptr_t) ? > I also think that (void *)(uintptr_t) would be the best replacement. I applied the changes to kernel/bpf and samples/bpf, and it worked fine. But in selftests/bpf, the following similar error occur at compile time: progs/test_cls_redirect.c:504:11: error: cast to 'uint8_t *' (aka 'unsigned char *') from smaller integer type 'uintptr_t' (aka 'unsigned int') [-Werror,-Wint-to-pointer-cast] .head = (uint8_t *)(uintptr_t)skb->data, I take clang to compile with the front and back end separation, like samples/bpf, and it works. It seems that the all-in-one clang has problems handling the uintptr_t. >> >> Thanks, >> Daniel > . >
On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 5:23 AM Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com> wrote: > > > > On 2022/6/4 5:03, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 2:03 PM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> wrote: > >> > >> On 5/30/22 11:28 AM, Pu Lehui wrote: > >>> The members of bpf_prog_info, which are line_info, jited_line_info, > >>> jited_ksyms and jited_func_lens, store u64 address pointed to the > >>> corresponding memory regions. Memory addresses are conceptually > >>> unsigned, (unsigned long) casting makes more sense, so let's make > >>> a change for conceptual uniformity. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com> > >>> --- > >>> tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c | 9 +++++---- > >>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c > >>> index 5c503096ef43..7beb060d0671 100644 > >>> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c > >>> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c > >>> @@ -127,7 +127,8 @@ struct bpf_prog_linfo *bpf_prog_linfo__new(const struct bpf_prog_info *info) > >>> prog_linfo->raw_linfo = malloc(data_sz); > >>> if (!prog_linfo->raw_linfo) > >>> goto err_free; > >>> - memcpy(prog_linfo->raw_linfo, (void *)(long)info->line_info, data_sz); > >>> + memcpy(prog_linfo->raw_linfo, (void *)(unsigned long)info->line_info, > >>> + data_sz); > >> > >> Took in patch 1-3, lgtm, thanks! My question around the cleanups in patch 4-6 ... > >> there are various other such cases e.g. in libbpf, perhaps makes sense to clean all > >> of them up at once and not just the 4 locations in here. > > > > if (void *)(long) pattern is wrong, then I guess the best replacement > > should be (void *)(uintptr_t) ? > > > > I also think that (void *)(uintptr_t) would be the best replacement. I > applied the changes to kernel/bpf and samples/bpf, and it worked fine. > But in selftests/bpf, the following similar error occur at compile time: > > progs/test_cls_redirect.c:504:11: error: cast to 'uint8_t *' (aka > 'unsigned char *') from smaller integer type 'uintptr_t' (aka 'unsigned > int') [-Werror,-Wint-to-pointer-cast] > .head = (uint8_t *)(uintptr_t)skb->data, this is BPF-side code so using system's uintptr_t definition won't work correctly here. Just do (unsigned long) instead? > > I take clang to compile with the front and back end separation, like > samples/bpf, and it works. It seems that the all-in-one clang has > problems handling the uintptr_t. > > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Daniel > > . > >
On 2022/7/9 6:30, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 5:23 AM Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 2022/6/4 5:03, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: >>> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 2:03 PM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 5/30/22 11:28 AM, Pu Lehui wrote: >>>>> The members of bpf_prog_info, which are line_info, jited_line_info, >>>>> jited_ksyms and jited_func_lens, store u64 address pointed to the >>>>> corresponding memory regions. Memory addresses are conceptually >>>>> unsigned, (unsigned long) casting makes more sense, so let's make >>>>> a change for conceptual uniformity. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c | 9 +++++---- >>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c >>>>> index 5c503096ef43..7beb060d0671 100644 >>>>> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c >>>>> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c >>>>> @@ -127,7 +127,8 @@ struct bpf_prog_linfo *bpf_prog_linfo__new(const struct bpf_prog_info *info) >>>>> prog_linfo->raw_linfo = malloc(data_sz); >>>>> if (!prog_linfo->raw_linfo) >>>>> goto err_free; >>>>> - memcpy(prog_linfo->raw_linfo, (void *)(long)info->line_info, data_sz); >>>>> + memcpy(prog_linfo->raw_linfo, (void *)(unsigned long)info->line_info, >>>>> + data_sz); >>>> >>>> Took in patch 1-3, lgtm, thanks! My question around the cleanups in patch 4-6 ... >>>> there are various other such cases e.g. in libbpf, perhaps makes sense to clean all >>>> of them up at once and not just the 4 locations in here. >>> >>> if (void *)(long) pattern is wrong, then I guess the best replacement >>> should be (void *)(uintptr_t) ? >>> >> >> I also think that (void *)(uintptr_t) would be the best replacement. I >> applied the changes to kernel/bpf and samples/bpf, and it worked fine. >> But in selftests/bpf, the following similar error occur at compile time: >> >> progs/test_cls_redirect.c:504:11: error: cast to 'uint8_t *' (aka >> 'unsigned char *') from smaller integer type 'uintptr_t' (aka 'unsigned >> int') [-Werror,-Wint-to-pointer-cast] >> .head = (uint8_t *)(uintptr_t)skb->data, > > this is BPF-side code so using system's uintptr_t definition won't > work correctly here. Just do (unsigned long) instead? > It is fine by me, and for this cleanup >> >> I take clang to compile with the front and back end separation, like >> samples/bpf, and it works. It seems that the all-in-one clang has >> problems handling the uintptr_t. >> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Daniel >>> . >>> > . >
diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c index 5c503096ef43..7beb060d0671 100644 --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c @@ -127,7 +127,8 @@ struct bpf_prog_linfo *bpf_prog_linfo__new(const struct bpf_prog_info *info) prog_linfo->raw_linfo = malloc(data_sz); if (!prog_linfo->raw_linfo) goto err_free; - memcpy(prog_linfo->raw_linfo, (void *)(long)info->line_info, data_sz); + memcpy(prog_linfo->raw_linfo, (void *)(unsigned long)info->line_info, + data_sz); nr_jited_func = info->nr_jited_ksyms; if (!nr_jited_func || @@ -148,7 +149,7 @@ struct bpf_prog_linfo *bpf_prog_linfo__new(const struct bpf_prog_info *info) if (!prog_linfo->raw_jited_linfo) goto err_free; memcpy(prog_linfo->raw_jited_linfo, - (void *)(long)info->jited_line_info, data_sz); + (void *)(unsigned long)info->jited_line_info, data_sz); /* Number of jited_line_info per jited func */ prog_linfo->nr_jited_linfo_per_func = malloc(nr_jited_func * @@ -166,8 +167,8 @@ struct bpf_prog_linfo *bpf_prog_linfo__new(const struct bpf_prog_info *info) goto err_free; if (dissect_jited_func(prog_linfo, - (__u64 *)(long)info->jited_ksyms, - (__u32 *)(long)info->jited_func_lens)) + (__u64 *)(unsigned long)info->jited_ksyms, + (__u32 *)(unsigned long)info->jited_func_lens)) goto err_free; return prog_linfo;
The members of bpf_prog_info, which are line_info, jited_line_info, jited_ksyms and jited_func_lens, store u64 address pointed to the corresponding memory regions. Memory addresses are conceptually unsigned, (unsigned long) casting makes more sense, so let's make a change for conceptual uniformity. Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com> --- tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c | 9 +++++---- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)