Re: [External] Re: [PATCH] libbpf: correct the macro KERNEL_VERSION for old kernel

[宋锐]

> > > > The introduced header file linux/version.h in libbpf_probes.c may have a
> > > > wrong macro KERNEL_VERSION for calculating LINUX_VERSION_CODE in some old
> > > > kernel (Debian9, 10). Below is a version info example from Debian 10.
> > > >
> > > > release: 4.19.0-22-amd64
> > > > version: #1 SMP Debian 4.19.260-1 (2022-09-29)
> > > >
> > > > The macro KERNEL_VERSION is defined to (((a) << 16) + ((b) << 8)) + (c)),
> > > > which a, b, and c stand for major, minor and patch version. So in example here,
> > > > the major is 4, minor is 19, patch is 260, the LINUX_VERSION(4, 19, 260) which
> > > > is 267268 should be matched to LINUX_VERSION_CODE. However, the KERNEL_VERSION_CODE
> > > > in linux/version.h is defined to 267263.
> > > >
> > > > I noticed that the macro KERNEL_VERSION in linux/version.h of some new kernel is
> > > > defined to (((a) << 16) + ((b) << 8) + ((c) > 255 ? 255 : (c))). And
> > > > KERNEL_VERSION(4, 19, 260) is equal to 267263 which is the right LINUX_VERSION_CODE.
> > > >
> > > > The mismatched LINUX_VERSION_CODE which will cause failing to load kprobe BPF
> > > > programs in the version check of BPF syscall.
> > > >
> > > > The return value of get_kernel_version in libbpf_probes.c should be matched to
> > > > LINUX_VERSION_CODE by correcting the macro KERNEL_VERSION.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: songrui.771 <songrui.771@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > This needs to be your name, not your email alias (do you use ".771" as a
> > > name to sign things with?)
> >
> > Thanks for your reminding. I will change it.
> > >
> > > > ---
> > > >  tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_probes.c | 10 +++++++---
> > > >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_probes.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_probes.c
> > > > index 4f3bc968ff8e..5b22a880c7e7 100644
> > > > --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_probes.c
> > > > +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_probes.c
> > > > @@ -18,6 +18,10 @@
> > > >  #include "libbpf.h"
> > > >  #include "libbpf_internal.h"
> > > >
> > > > +#ifndef LIBBPF_KERNEL_VERSION
> > > > +#define LIBBPF_KERNEL_VERSION(a, b, c) (((a) << 16) + ((b) << 8) + ((c) > 255 ? 255 : (c)))
> > > > +#endif
> > >
> > > What is wrong with using the KERNEL_VERSION() macro, it should be fixed
> > > to work properly here, right?  Did we not get this resolved in the
> > > main portion of the kernel already?
> >
> > The KERNEL_VERSION() macro from linux/version.h is wrong in some old
> > kernel(Debian 9, 10) that we would like to support. As you said, the
> > problem was resolved in the newer kernel. Here is the difference:
>
> But the kernels you want to "support" all have older kernel versions and
> so you do not need the change to the macro as they are not running newer
> kernel versions with an increased minor version number.
>
> So on those systems, building will work just fine, if not, then that's a
> Debian bug and they should fix it in their kernel packages.

> > linux/version.h
> > in older kernel: #define KERNEL_VERSION(a, b, c) (((a) << 16) + ((b)
> > << 8)) + (c)))
> > in newer kernel: #define KERNEL_VERSION(a, b, c) KERNEL_VERSION(a, b,
> > c) (((a) << 16) + ((b) << 8) + ((c) > 255 ? 255 : (c)))
> >
> > Using the KERNEL_VERSION macro in the older kernel returns the kern
> > version  which is  mismatched to the LINUX_VERSION_CODE that will
> > cause failing to load the BPF kprobe program.
> >
> > In my opinion, it is a more generic solution that corrects the
> > KERNEL_VERSION() macro in libbpf to support some old kernel.
>
> The KERNEL_VERSION() macro comes from the kernel you are building
> against.  And so that should match that kernel only.

Thanks again for your reply. You're absolutely right. This bug exists
on many older kernels(Debian9, 10, CentOS 7). It's not a kernel bug,
but the  kernel release package bug. I will correct the
KERNEL_VERSION() macro in header file linux/kernel.h provided by
kernel package to make things right.

Thanks
Best
Jerry Song