Re: [PATCH 01/54] perf test: Add libbpf relocation checker
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
Date: Tue Jan 26 2016 - 10:07:55 EST
Em Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:58:50PM -0200, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
> Em Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 09:55:48AM +0000, Wang Nan escreveu:
> > There's a bug in LLVM that it can generate unneeded relocation
> > information. See [1] and [2]. Libbpf should check the target section
> > of a relocation symbol.
> >
> > This patch adds a testcase which reference a global variable (BPF
> > doesn't support global variable). Before fixing libbpf, the new test
> > case can be loaded into kernel, the global variable acts like the first
> > map. It is incorrect.
> >
> > Result:
> > # ~/perf test BPF
> > 37: Test BPF filter :
> > 37.1: Test basic BPF filtering : Ok
> > 37.2: Test BPF prologue generation : Ok
> > 37.3: Test BPF relocation checker : FAILED!
> >
> > # ~/perf test -v BPF
> > ...
> > libbpf: loading object '[bpf_relocation_test]' from buffer
> > libbpf: section .strtab, size 126, link 0, flags 0, type=3
> > libbpf: section .text, size 0, link 0, flags 6, type=1
> > libbpf: section .data, size 0, link 0, flags 3, type=1
> > libbpf: section .bss, size 0, link 0, flags 3, type=8
> > libbpf: section func=sys_write, size 104, link 0, flags 6, type=1
> > libbpf: found program func=sys_write
> > libbpf: section .relfunc=sys_write, size 16, link 10, flags 0, type=9
> > libbpf: section maps, size 16, link 0, flags 3, type=1
> > libbpf: maps in [bpf_relocation_test]: 16 bytes
> > libbpf: section license, size 4, link 0, flags 3, type=1
> > libbpf: license of [bpf_relocation_test] is GPL
> > libbpf: section version, size 4, link 0, flags 3, type=1
> > libbpf: kernel version of [bpf_relocation_test] is 40400
> > libbpf: section .symtab, size 144, link 1, flags 0, type=2
> > libbpf: map 0 is "my_table"
> > libbpf: collecting relocating info for: 'func=sys_write'
> > libbpf: relocation: insn_idx=7
> > Success unexpectedly: libbpf error when dealing with relocation
>
> "Success unexpectedly?" Reading the code to try to grok this message...
obj = prepare_bpf(obj_buf, obj_buf_sz,
bpf_testcase_table[idx].name);
if ((!!bpf_testcase_table[idx].target_func) != (!!obj)) {
if (!obj)
pr_debug("Fail to load BPF object: %s\n",
bpf_testcase_table[idx].msg_load_fail);
else
pr_debug("Success unexpectedly: %s\n",
bpf_testcase_table[idx].msg_load_fail);
ret = TEST_FAIL;
goto out;
}
Ok, so in this case you have target_func == NULL, and you managed to
prepare the bpf object, that shouldn't been the case, i.e. prepare_obj
should've returned NULL.
Perhaps replace that "Success unexpectedly" with "Unexpected sucess,
this script is invalid, should've been marked as such by function
libbpf_foo()"?
Now to apply the follow up patch to see how that will make this test
work as expected...
- Arnaldo