On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 3:46 PM James Hilliard <james.hilliard1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The bpf_tail_call_static function is currently not defined unless
using clang >= 8.
To support bpf_tail_call_static on GCC we can check if __clang__ is
not defined to enable bpf_tail_call_static.
Signed-off-by: James Hilliard <james.hilliard1@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h | 10 +++++-----
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
index 7349b16b8e2f..30fc95e7cd76 100644
@@ -131,7 +131,7 @@
* Helper function to perform a tail call with a constant/immediate map slot.
-#if __clang_major__ >= 8 && defined(__bpf__)
+#if (!defined(__clang__) || __clang_major__ >= 8) && defined(__bpf__)
static __always_inline void
bpf_tail_call_static(void *ctx, const void *map, const __u32 slot)
@@ -139,8 +139,8 @@ bpf_tail_call_static(void *ctx, const void *map, const __u32 slot)
- * Provide a hard guarantee that LLVM won't optimize setting r2 (map
- * pointer) and r3 (constant map index) from _different paths_ ending
+ * Provide a hard guarantee that the compiler won't optimize setting r2
+ * (map pointer) and r3 (constant map index) from _different paths_ ending
* up at the _same_ call insn as otherwise we won't be able to use the
* jmpq/nopl retpoline-free patching by the x86-64 JIT in the kernel
* given they mismatch. See also d2e4c1e6c294 ("bpf: Constant map key
@@ -148,8 +148,8 @@ bpf_tail_call_static(void *ctx, const void *map, const __u32 slot)
* Note on clobber list: we need to stay in-line with BPF calling
* convention, so even if we don't end up using r0, r4, r5, we need
- * to mark them as clobber so that LLVM doesn't end up using them
- * before / after the call.
+ * to mark them as clobber so that the compiler doesn't end up using
+ * them before / after the call.
asm volatile("r1 = %[ctx]\n\t"
"r2 = %[map]\n\t"
will this compile as is on GCC-BPF? I'm trying to understand what's
the point. Once GCC supports this ASM syntax we can add similar check
to __clang_major__, instead of allowing it for all GCC versions?
We must have done __clang_major__ check for a reason, old Clangs
probably had some problems compiling this. Maybe Daniel remembers?