| Message ID | 20190702153908.41562-1-iii@linux.ibm.com |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Delegated to: | BPF Maintainers |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [bpf-next] selftests/bpf: fix compiling loop{1,2,3}.c on s390 | expand |
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 8:40 AM Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > > Use PT_REGS_RC(ctx) instead of ctx->rax, which is not present on s390. > > Pass -D__TARGET_ARCH_$(ARCH) to selftests in order to choose a proper > PT_REGS_RC variant. > > Fix s930 -> s390 typo. > > On s390, provide the forward declaration of struct pt_regs and cast it > to user_pt_regs in PT_REGS_* macros. This is necessary, because instead > of the full struct pt_regs, s390 exposes only its first field > user_pt_regs to userspace, and bpf_helpers.h is used with both userspace > (in selftests) and kernel (in samples) headers. > > On x86, provide userspace versions of PT_REGS_* macros. Unlike s390, x86 > provides struct pt_regs to both userspace and kernel, however, with > different field names. > > Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com> > --- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile | 4 +- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_helpers.h | 46 +++++++++++++++-------- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop1.c | 2 +- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop2.c | 2 +- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop3.c | 2 +- > 5 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile > index d60fee59fbd1..599b320bef65 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile > @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ > # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > include ../../../../scripts/Kbuild.include > +include ../../../scripts/Makefile.arch > > LIBDIR := ../../../lib > BPFDIR := $(LIBDIR)/bpf > @@ -138,7 +139,8 @@ CLANG_SYS_INCLUDES := $(shell $(CLANG) -v -E - </dev/null 2>&1 \ > > CLANG_FLAGS = -I. -I./include/uapi -I../../../include/uapi \ > $(CLANG_SYS_INCLUDES) \ > - -Wno-compare-distinct-pointer-types > + -Wno-compare-distinct-pointer-types \ > + -D__TARGET_ARCH_$(ARCH) > > $(OUTPUT)/test_l4lb_noinline.o: CLANG_FLAGS += -fno-inline > $(OUTPUT)/test_xdp_noinline.o: CLANG_FLAGS += -fno-inline > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_helpers.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_helpers.h > index 1a5b1accf091..faf86d83301a 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_helpers.h > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_helpers.h > @@ -312,8 +312,8 @@ static int (*bpf_skb_adjust_room)(void *ctx, __s32 len_diff, __u32 mode, > #if defined(__TARGET_ARCH_x86) > #define bpf_target_x86 > #define bpf_target_defined > -#elif defined(__TARGET_ARCH_s930x) > - #define bpf_target_s930x > +#elif defined(__TARGET_ARCH_s390) > + #define bpf_target_s390 > #define bpf_target_defined > #elif defined(__TARGET_ARCH_arm) > #define bpf_target_arm > @@ -338,8 +338,8 @@ static int (*bpf_skb_adjust_room)(void *ctx, __s32 len_diff, __u32 mode, > #ifndef bpf_target_defined > #if defined(__x86_64__) > #define bpf_target_x86 > -#elif defined(__s390x__) > - #define bpf_target_s930x I see in some other places (e.g., bcc) where macro __s390x__ is also used to indicate a s390 architecture. Could you explain the difference between __s390__ and __s390x__? > +#elif defined(__s390__) > + #define bpf_target_s390 > #elif defined(__arm__) > #define bpf_target_arm > #elif defined(__aarch64__) > @@ -355,6 +355,7 @@ static int (*bpf_skb_adjust_room)(void *ctx, __s32 len_diff, __u32 mode, > > #if defined(bpf_target_x86) > > +#ifdef __KERNEL__ In samples/bpf/, __KERNEL__ is defined at clang options and in selftests/bpf/, the __KERNEL__ is not defined. I checked x86 pt_regs definition with and without __KERNEL__. They are identical except some register name difference. I am wondering whether we can unify into all without __KERNEL__. Is __KERNEL__ really needed? > #define PT_REGS_PARM1(x) ((x)->di) > #define PT_REGS_PARM2(x) ((x)->si) > #define PT_REGS_PARM3(x) ((x)->dx) > @@ -365,19 +366,34 @@ static int (*bpf_skb_adjust_room)(void *ctx, __s32 len_diff, __u32 mode, > #define PT_REGS_RC(x) ((x)->ax) > #define PT_REGS_SP(x) ((x)->sp) > #define PT_REGS_IP(x) ((x)->ip) > +#else > +#define PT_REGS_PARM1(x) ((x)->rdi) > +#define PT_REGS_PARM2(x) ((x)->rsi) > +#define PT_REGS_PARM3(x) ((x)->rdx) > +#define PT_REGS_PARM4(x) ((x)->rcx) > +#define PT_REGS_PARM5(x) ((x)->r8) > +#define PT_REGS_RET(x) ((x)->rsp) > +#define PT_REGS_FP(x) ((x)->rbp) > +#define PT_REGS_RC(x) ((x)->rax) > +#define PT_REGS_SP(x) ((x)->rsp) > +#define PT_REGS_IP(x) ((x)->rip) > +#endif > > -#elif defined(bpf_target_s390x) > +#elif defined(bpf_target_s390) > > -#define PT_REGS_PARM1(x) ((x)->gprs[2]) > -#define PT_REGS_PARM2(x) ((x)->gprs[3]) > -#define PT_REGS_PARM3(x) ((x)->gprs[4]) > -#define PT_REGS_PARM4(x) ((x)->gprs[5]) > -#define PT_REGS_PARM5(x) ((x)->gprs[6]) > -#define PT_REGS_RET(x) ((x)->gprs[14]) > -#define PT_REGS_FP(x) ((x)->gprs[11]) /* Works only with CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER */ > -#define PT_REGS_RC(x) ((x)->gprs[2]) > -#define PT_REGS_SP(x) ((x)->gprs[15]) > -#define PT_REGS_IP(x) ((x)->psw.addr) > +/* s390 provides user_pt_regs instead of struct pt_regs to userspace */ > +struct pt_regs; > +#define PT_REGS_PARM1(x) (((const volatile user_pt_regs *)(x))->gprs[2]) > +#define PT_REGS_PARM2(x) (((const volatile user_pt_regs *)(x))->gprs[3]) > +#define PT_REGS_PARM3(x) (((const volatile user_pt_regs *)(x))->gprs[4]) > +#define PT_REGS_PARM4(x) (((const volatile user_pt_regs *)(x))->gprs[5]) > +#define PT_REGS_PARM5(x) (((const volatile user_pt_regs *)(x))->gprs[6]) > +#define PT_REGS_RET(x) (((const volatile user_pt_regs *)(x))->gprs[14]) > +/* Works only with CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER */ > +#define PT_REGS_FP(x) (((const volatile user_pt_regs *)(x))->gprs[11]) > +#define PT_REGS_RC(x) (((const volatile user_pt_regs *)(x))->gprs[2]) > +#define PT_REGS_SP(x) (((const volatile user_pt_regs *)(x))->gprs[15]) > +#define PT_REGS_IP(x) (((const volatile user_pt_regs *)(x))->psw.addr) Is user_pt_regs a recent change or has been there for quite some time? I am asking since bcc did not use user_pt_regs yet. > > #elif defined(bpf_target_arm) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop1.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop1.c > index dea395af9ea9..7cdb7f878310 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop1.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop1.c > @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ int nested_loops(volatile struct pt_regs* ctx) > for (j = 0; j < 300; j++) > for (i = 0; i < j; i++) { > if (j & 1) > - m = ctx->rax; > + m = PT_REGS_RC(ctx); > else > m = j; > sum += i * m; > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop2.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop2.c > index 0637bd8e8bcf..9b2f808a2863 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop2.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop2.c > @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ int while_true(volatile struct pt_regs* ctx) > int i = 0; > > while (true) { > - if (ctx->rax & 1) > + if (PT_REGS_RC(ctx) & 1) > i += 3; > else > i += 7; > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop3.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop3.c > index 30a0f6cba080..d727657d51e2 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop3.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop3.c > @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ int while_true(volatile struct pt_regs* ctx) > __u64 i = 0, sum = 0; > do { > i++; > - sum += ctx->rax; > + sum += PT_REGS_RC(ctx); > } while (i < 0x100000000ULL); > return sum; > } > -- > 2.21.0 >
> Am 02.07.2019 um 18:42 schrieb Y Song <ys114321@gmail.com>: > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 8:40 AM Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com> wrote: >> >> -#elif defined(__s390x__) >> - #define bpf_target_s930x > > I see in some other places (e.g., bcc) where > macro __s390x__ is also used to indicate a s390 architecture. > Could you explain the difference between __s390__ and > __s390x__? __s390__ is defined for 32-bit and 64-bit variants, __s390x__ is defined for 64-bit variant only. >> #if defined(bpf_target_x86) >> >> +#ifdef __KERNEL__ > > In samples/bpf/, __KERNEL__ is defined at clang options and > in selftests/bpf/, the __KERNEL__ is not defined. > > I checked x86 pt_regs definition with and without __KERNEL__. > They are identical except some register name difference. > I am wondering whether we can unify into all without > __KERNEL__. Is __KERNEL__ really needed? Right now removing it causes the build to fail, but the errors look fixable. However, I wonder whether there is a plan regarding this: should eBPF programs be built with user headers, kernel headers, or both? Status quo appears to be "both", so I’ve decided to stick with that in this patch. >> +/* s390 provides user_pt_regs instead of struct pt_regs to userspace */ >> +struct pt_regs; >> +#define PT_REGS_PARM1(x) (((const volatile user_pt_regs *)(x))->gprs[2]) > > Is user_pt_regs a recent change or has been there for quite some time? > I am asking since bcc did not use user_pt_regs yet. It was added in late 2017 in commit 466698e654e8 ("s390/bpf: correct broken uapi for BPF_PROG_TYPE_PERF_EVENT program type“).
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 9:58 AM Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > > > Am 02.07.2019 um 18:42 schrieb Y Song <ys114321@gmail.com>: > > > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 8:40 AM Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > >> > >> -#elif defined(__s390x__) > >> - #define bpf_target_s930x > > > > I see in some other places (e.g., bcc) where > > macro __s390x__ is also used to indicate a s390 architecture. > > Could you explain the difference between __s390__ and > > __s390x__? > > __s390__ is defined for 32-bit and 64-bit variants, __s390x__ is defined > for 64-bit variant only. Thanks. > > >> #if defined(bpf_target_x86) > >> > >> +#ifdef __KERNEL__ > > > > In samples/bpf/, __KERNEL__ is defined at clang options and > > in selftests/bpf/, the __KERNEL__ is not defined. > > > > I checked x86 pt_regs definition with and without __KERNEL__. > > They are identical except some register name difference. > > I am wondering whether we can unify into all without > > __KERNEL__. Is __KERNEL__ really needed? > > Right now removing it causes the build to fail, but the errors look > fixable. However, I wonder whether there is a plan regarding this: > should eBPF programs be built with user headers, kernel headers, > or both? Status quo appears to be "both", so I’ve decided to stick with > that in this patch. Your patch is okay in the sense it maintains the current behavor. I think it is okay since user level and kernel pt_regs layout are the same except certain names are different. > > >> +/* s390 provides user_pt_regs instead of struct pt_regs to userspace */ > >> +struct pt_regs; > >> +#define PT_REGS_PARM1(x) (((const volatile user_pt_regs *)(x))->gprs[2]) > > > > Is user_pt_regs a recent change or has been there for quite some time? > > I am asking since bcc did not use user_pt_regs yet. > > It was added in late 2017 in commit 466698e654e8 ("s390/bpf: correct > broken uapi for BPF_PROG_TYPE_PERF_EVENT program type“). Thanks.
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 8:40 AM Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > > Use PT_REGS_RC(ctx) instead of ctx->rax, which is not present on s390. > > Pass -D__TARGET_ARCH_$(ARCH) to selftests in order to choose a proper > PT_REGS_RC variant. > > Fix s930 -> s390 typo. > > On s390, provide the forward declaration of struct pt_regs and cast it > to user_pt_regs in PT_REGS_* macros. This is necessary, because instead > of the full struct pt_regs, s390 exposes only its first field > user_pt_regs to userspace, and bpf_helpers.h is used with both userspace > (in selftests) and kernel (in samples) headers. > > On x86, provide userspace versions of PT_REGS_* macros. Unlike s390, x86 > provides struct pt_regs to both userspace and kernel, however, with > different field names. > > Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com> Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com> > --- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile | 4 +- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_helpers.h | 46 +++++++++++++++-------- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop1.c | 2 +- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop2.c | 2 +- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop3.c | 2 +- > 5 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile > index d60fee59fbd1..599b320bef65 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile > @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ > # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > include ../../../../scripts/Kbuild.include > +include ../../../scripts/Makefile.arch > > LIBDIR := ../../../lib > BPFDIR := $(LIBDIR)/bpf > @@ -138,7 +139,8 @@ CLANG_SYS_INCLUDES := $(shell $(CLANG) -v -E - </dev/null 2>&1 \ > > CLANG_FLAGS = -I. -I./include/uapi -I../../../include/uapi \ > $(CLANG_SYS_INCLUDES) \ > - -Wno-compare-distinct-pointer-types > + -Wno-compare-distinct-pointer-types \ > + -D__TARGET_ARCH_$(ARCH) > > $(OUTPUT)/test_l4lb_noinline.o: CLANG_FLAGS += -fno-inline > $(OUTPUT)/test_xdp_noinline.o: CLANG_FLAGS += -fno-inline > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_helpers.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_helpers.h > index 1a5b1accf091..faf86d83301a 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_helpers.h > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_helpers.h > @@ -312,8 +312,8 @@ static int (*bpf_skb_adjust_room)(void *ctx, __s32 len_diff, __u32 mode, > #if defined(__TARGET_ARCH_x86) > #define bpf_target_x86 > #define bpf_target_defined > -#elif defined(__TARGET_ARCH_s930x) > - #define bpf_target_s930x > +#elif defined(__TARGET_ARCH_s390) > + #define bpf_target_s390 > #define bpf_target_defined > #elif defined(__TARGET_ARCH_arm) > #define bpf_target_arm > @@ -338,8 +338,8 @@ static int (*bpf_skb_adjust_room)(void *ctx, __s32 len_diff, __u32 mode, > #ifndef bpf_target_defined > #if defined(__x86_64__) > #define bpf_target_x86 > -#elif defined(__s390x__) > - #define bpf_target_s930x > +#elif defined(__s390__) > + #define bpf_target_s390 > #elif defined(__arm__) > #define bpf_target_arm > #elif defined(__aarch64__) > @@ -355,6 +355,7 @@ static int (*bpf_skb_adjust_room)(void *ctx, __s32 len_diff, __u32 mode, > > #if defined(bpf_target_x86) > > +#ifdef __KERNEL__ > #define PT_REGS_PARM1(x) ((x)->di) > #define PT_REGS_PARM2(x) ((x)->si) > #define PT_REGS_PARM3(x) ((x)->dx) > @@ -365,19 +366,34 @@ static int (*bpf_skb_adjust_room)(void *ctx, __s32 len_diff, __u32 mode, > #define PT_REGS_RC(x) ((x)->ax) > #define PT_REGS_SP(x) ((x)->sp) > #define PT_REGS_IP(x) ((x)->ip) > +#else > +#define PT_REGS_PARM1(x) ((x)->rdi) > +#define PT_REGS_PARM2(x) ((x)->rsi) > +#define PT_REGS_PARM3(x) ((x)->rdx) > +#define PT_REGS_PARM4(x) ((x)->rcx) > +#define PT_REGS_PARM5(x) ((x)->r8) > +#define PT_REGS_RET(x) ((x)->rsp) > +#define PT_REGS_FP(x) ((x)->rbp) > +#define PT_REGS_RC(x) ((x)->rax) > +#define PT_REGS_SP(x) ((x)->rsp) > +#define PT_REGS_IP(x) ((x)->rip) > +#endif > > -#elif defined(bpf_target_s390x) > +#elif defined(bpf_target_s390) > > -#define PT_REGS_PARM1(x) ((x)->gprs[2]) > -#define PT_REGS_PARM2(x) ((x)->gprs[3]) > -#define PT_REGS_PARM3(x) ((x)->gprs[4]) > -#define PT_REGS_PARM4(x) ((x)->gprs[5]) > -#define PT_REGS_PARM5(x) ((x)->gprs[6]) > -#define PT_REGS_RET(x) ((x)->gprs[14]) > -#define PT_REGS_FP(x) ((x)->gprs[11]) /* Works only with CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER */ > -#define PT_REGS_RC(x) ((x)->gprs[2]) > -#define PT_REGS_SP(x) ((x)->gprs[15]) > -#define PT_REGS_IP(x) ((x)->psw.addr) > +/* s390 provides user_pt_regs instead of struct pt_regs to userspace */ > +struct pt_regs; > +#define PT_REGS_PARM1(x) (((const volatile user_pt_regs *)(x))->gprs[2]) > +#define PT_REGS_PARM2(x) (((const volatile user_pt_regs *)(x))->gprs[3]) > +#define PT_REGS_PARM3(x) (((const volatile user_pt_regs *)(x))->gprs[4]) > +#define PT_REGS_PARM4(x) (((const volatile user_pt_regs *)(x))->gprs[5]) > +#define PT_REGS_PARM5(x) (((const volatile user_pt_regs *)(x))->gprs[6]) > +#define PT_REGS_RET(x) (((const volatile user_pt_regs *)(x))->gprs[14]) > +/* Works only with CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER */ > +#define PT_REGS_FP(x) (((const volatile user_pt_regs *)(x))->gprs[11]) > +#define PT_REGS_RC(x) (((const volatile user_pt_regs *)(x))->gprs[2]) > +#define PT_REGS_SP(x) (((const volatile user_pt_regs *)(x))->gprs[15]) > +#define PT_REGS_IP(x) (((const volatile user_pt_regs *)(x))->psw.addr) > > #elif defined(bpf_target_arm) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop1.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop1.c > index dea395af9ea9..7cdb7f878310 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop1.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop1.c > @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ int nested_loops(volatile struct pt_regs* ctx) > for (j = 0; j < 300; j++) > for (i = 0; i < j; i++) { > if (j & 1) > - m = ctx->rax; > + m = PT_REGS_RC(ctx); > else > m = j; > sum += i * m; > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop2.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop2.c > index 0637bd8e8bcf..9b2f808a2863 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop2.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop2.c > @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ int while_true(volatile struct pt_regs* ctx) > int i = 0; > > while (true) { > - if (ctx->rax & 1) > + if (PT_REGS_RC(ctx) & 1) > i += 3; > else > i += 7; > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop3.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop3.c > index 30a0f6cba080..d727657d51e2 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop3.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop3.c > @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ int while_true(volatile struct pt_regs* ctx) > __u64 i = 0, sum = 0; > do { > i++; > - sum += ctx->rax; > + sum += PT_REGS_RC(ctx); > } while (i < 0x100000000ULL); > return sum; > } > -- > 2.21.0 >
On 07/02/2019 05:39 PM, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote: > Use PT_REGS_RC(ctx) instead of ctx->rax, which is not present on s390. > > Pass -D__TARGET_ARCH_$(ARCH) to selftests in order to choose a proper > PT_REGS_RC variant. > > Fix s930 -> s390 typo. > > On s390, provide the forward declaration of struct pt_regs and cast it > to user_pt_regs in PT_REGS_* macros. This is necessary, because instead > of the full struct pt_regs, s390 exposes only its first field > user_pt_regs to userspace, and bpf_helpers.h is used with both userspace > (in selftests) and kernel (in samples) headers. > > On x86, provide userspace versions of PT_REGS_* macros. Unlike s390, x86 > provides struct pt_regs to both userspace and kernel, however, with > different field names. > > Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com> This doesn't apply cleanly to bpf-next, please rebase. I also think this should be ideally split into multiple patches, seems like 4 different issues which you are addressing in this single patch. Thanks, Daniel
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile index d60fee59fbd1..599b320bef65 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 include ../../../../scripts/Kbuild.include +include ../../../scripts/Makefile.arch LIBDIR := ../../../lib BPFDIR := $(LIBDIR)/bpf @@ -138,7 +139,8 @@ CLANG_SYS_INCLUDES := $(shell $(CLANG) -v -E - </dev/null 2>&1 \ CLANG_FLAGS = -I. -I./include/uapi -I../../../include/uapi \ $(CLANG_SYS_INCLUDES) \ - -Wno-compare-distinct-pointer-types + -Wno-compare-distinct-pointer-types \ + -D__TARGET_ARCH_$(ARCH) $(OUTPUT)/test_l4lb_noinline.o: CLANG_FLAGS += -fno-inline $(OUTPUT)/test_xdp_noinline.o: CLANG_FLAGS += -fno-inline diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_helpers.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_helpers.h index 1a5b1accf091..faf86d83301a 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_helpers.h +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_helpers.h @@ -312,8 +312,8 @@ static int (*bpf_skb_adjust_room)(void *ctx, __s32 len_diff, __u32 mode, #if defined(__TARGET_ARCH_x86) #define bpf_target_x86 #define bpf_target_defined -#elif defined(__TARGET_ARCH_s930x) - #define bpf_target_s930x +#elif defined(__TARGET_ARCH_s390) + #define bpf_target_s390 #define bpf_target_defined #elif defined(__TARGET_ARCH_arm) #define bpf_target_arm @@ -338,8 +338,8 @@ static int (*bpf_skb_adjust_room)(void *ctx, __s32 len_diff, __u32 mode, #ifndef bpf_target_defined #if defined(__x86_64__) #define bpf_target_x86 -#elif defined(__s390x__) - #define bpf_target_s930x +#elif defined(__s390__) + #define bpf_target_s390 #elif defined(__arm__) #define bpf_target_arm #elif defined(__aarch64__) @@ -355,6 +355,7 @@ static int (*bpf_skb_adjust_room)(void *ctx, __s32 len_diff, __u32 mode, #if defined(bpf_target_x86) +#ifdef __KERNEL__ #define PT_REGS_PARM1(x) ((x)->di) #define PT_REGS_PARM2(x) ((x)->si) #define PT_REGS_PARM3(x) ((x)->dx) @@ -365,19 +366,34 @@ static int (*bpf_skb_adjust_room)(void *ctx, __s32 len_diff, __u32 mode, #define PT_REGS_RC(x) ((x)->ax) #define PT_REGS_SP(x) ((x)->sp) #define PT_REGS_IP(x) ((x)->ip) +#else +#define PT_REGS_PARM1(x) ((x)->rdi) +#define PT_REGS_PARM2(x) ((x)->rsi) +#define PT_REGS_PARM3(x) ((x)->rdx) +#define PT_REGS_PARM4(x) ((x)->rcx) +#define PT_REGS_PARM5(x) ((x)->r8) +#define PT_REGS_RET(x) ((x)->rsp) +#define PT_REGS_FP(x) ((x)->rbp) +#define PT_REGS_RC(x) ((x)->rax) +#define PT_REGS_SP(x) ((x)->rsp) +#define PT_REGS_IP(x) ((x)->rip) +#endif -#elif defined(bpf_target_s390x) +#elif defined(bpf_target_s390) -#define PT_REGS_PARM1(x) ((x)->gprs[2]) -#define PT_REGS_PARM2(x) ((x)->gprs[3]) -#define PT_REGS_PARM3(x) ((x)->gprs[4]) -#define PT_REGS_PARM4(x) ((x)->gprs[5]) -#define PT_REGS_PARM5(x) ((x)->gprs[6]) -#define PT_REGS_RET(x) ((x)->gprs[14]) -#define PT_REGS_FP(x) ((x)->gprs[11]) /* Works only with CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER */ -#define PT_REGS_RC(x) ((x)->gprs[2]) -#define PT_REGS_SP(x) ((x)->gprs[15]) -#define PT_REGS_IP(x) ((x)->psw.addr) +/* s390 provides user_pt_regs instead of struct pt_regs to userspace */ +struct pt_regs; +#define PT_REGS_PARM1(x) (((const volatile user_pt_regs *)(x))->gprs[2]) +#define PT_REGS_PARM2(x) (((const volatile user_pt_regs *)(x))->gprs[3]) +#define PT_REGS_PARM3(x) (((const volatile user_pt_regs *)(x))->gprs[4]) +#define PT_REGS_PARM4(x) (((const volatile user_pt_regs *)(x))->gprs[5]) +#define PT_REGS_PARM5(x) (((const volatile user_pt_regs *)(x))->gprs[6]) +#define PT_REGS_RET(x) (((const volatile user_pt_regs *)(x))->gprs[14]) +/* Works only with CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER */ +#define PT_REGS_FP(x) (((const volatile user_pt_regs *)(x))->gprs[11]) +#define PT_REGS_RC(x) (((const volatile user_pt_regs *)(x))->gprs[2]) +#define PT_REGS_SP(x) (((const volatile user_pt_regs *)(x))->gprs[15]) +#define PT_REGS_IP(x) (((const volatile user_pt_regs *)(x))->psw.addr) #elif defined(bpf_target_arm) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop1.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop1.c index dea395af9ea9..7cdb7f878310 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop1.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop1.c @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ int nested_loops(volatile struct pt_regs* ctx) for (j = 0; j < 300; j++) for (i = 0; i < j; i++) { if (j & 1) - m = ctx->rax; + m = PT_REGS_RC(ctx); else m = j; sum += i * m; diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop2.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop2.c index 0637bd8e8bcf..9b2f808a2863 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop2.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop2.c @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ int while_true(volatile struct pt_regs* ctx) int i = 0; while (true) { - if (ctx->rax & 1) + if (PT_REGS_RC(ctx) & 1) i += 3; else i += 7; diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop3.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop3.c index 30a0f6cba080..d727657d51e2 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop3.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop3.c @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ int while_true(volatile struct pt_regs* ctx) __u64 i = 0, sum = 0; do { i++; - sum += ctx->rax; + sum += PT_REGS_RC(ctx); } while (i < 0x100000000ULL); return sum; }
Use PT_REGS_RC(ctx) instead of ctx->rax, which is not present on s390. Pass -D__TARGET_ARCH_$(ARCH) to selftests in order to choose a proper PT_REGS_RC variant. Fix s930 -> s390 typo. On s390, provide the forward declaration of struct pt_regs and cast it to user_pt_regs in PT_REGS_* macros. This is necessary, because instead of the full struct pt_regs, s390 exposes only its first field user_pt_regs to userspace, and bpf_helpers.h is used with both userspace (in selftests) and kernel (in samples) headers. On x86, provide userspace versions of PT_REGS_* macros. Unlike s390, x86 provides struct pt_regs to both userspace and kernel, however, with different field names. Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com> --- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile | 4 +- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_helpers.h | 46 +++++++++++++++-------- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop1.c | 2 +- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop2.c | 2 +- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/loop3.c | 2 +- 5 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)