649 lines
26 KiB
ReStructuredText
649 lines
26 KiB
ReStructuredText
=================================
|
|
HOWTO interact with BPF subsystem
|
|
=================================
|
|
|
|
This document provides information for the BPF subsystem about various
|
|
workflows related to reporting bugs, submitting patches, and queueing
|
|
patches for stable kernels.
|
|
|
|
For general information about submitting patches, please refer to
|
|
`Documentation/process/`_. This document only describes additional specifics
|
|
related to BPF.
|
|
|
|
.. contents::
|
|
:local:
|
|
:depth: 2
|
|
|
|
Reporting bugs
|
|
==============
|
|
|
|
Q: How do I report bugs for BPF kernel code?
|
|
--------------------------------------------
|
|
A: Since all BPF kernel development as well as bpftool and iproute2 BPF
|
|
loader development happens through the bpf kernel mailing list,
|
|
please report any found issues around BPF to the following mailing
|
|
list:
|
|
|
|
bpf@vger.kernel.org
|
|
|
|
This may also include issues related to XDP, BPF tracing, etc.
|
|
|
|
Given netdev has a high volume of traffic, please also add the BPF
|
|
maintainers to Cc (from kernel MAINTAINERS_ file):
|
|
|
|
* Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
|
* Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
|
|
|
|
In case a buggy commit has already been identified, make sure to keep
|
|
the actual commit authors in Cc as well for the report. They can
|
|
typically be identified through the kernel's git tree.
|
|
|
|
**Please do NOT report BPF issues to bugzilla.kernel.org since it
|
|
is a guarantee that the reported issue will be overlooked.**
|
|
|
|
Submitting patches
|
|
==================
|
|
|
|
Q: To which mailing list do I need to submit my BPF patches?
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
A: Please submit your BPF patches to the bpf kernel mailing list:
|
|
|
|
bpf@vger.kernel.org
|
|
|
|
In case your patch has changes in various different subsystems (e.g.
|
|
networking, tracing, security, etc), make sure to Cc the related kernel mailing
|
|
lists and maintainers from there as well, so they are able to review
|
|
the changes and provide their Acked-by's to the patches.
|
|
|
|
Q: Where can I find patches currently under discussion for BPF subsystem?
|
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
A: All patches that are Cc'ed to netdev are queued for review under netdev
|
|
patchwork project:
|
|
|
|
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/list/
|
|
|
|
Those patches which target BPF, are assigned to a 'bpf' delegate for
|
|
further processing from BPF maintainers. The current queue with
|
|
patches under review can be found at:
|
|
|
|
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/list/?delegate=77147
|
|
|
|
Once the patches have been reviewed by the BPF community as a whole
|
|
and approved by the BPF maintainers, their status in patchwork will be
|
|
changed to 'Accepted' and the submitter will be notified by mail. This
|
|
means that the patches look good from a BPF perspective and have been
|
|
applied to one of the two BPF kernel trees.
|
|
|
|
In case feedback from the community requires a respin of the patches,
|
|
their status in patchwork will be set to 'Changes Requested', and purged
|
|
from the current review queue. Likewise for cases where patches would
|
|
get rejected or are not applicable to the BPF trees (but assigned to
|
|
the 'bpf' delegate).
|
|
|
|
Q: How do the changes make their way into Linux?
|
|
------------------------------------------------
|
|
A: There are two BPF kernel trees (git repositories). Once patches have
|
|
been accepted by the BPF maintainers, they will be applied to one
|
|
of the two BPF trees:
|
|
|
|
* https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf.git/
|
|
* https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next.git/
|
|
|
|
The bpf tree itself is for fixes only, whereas bpf-next for features,
|
|
cleanups or other kind of improvements ("next-like" content). This is
|
|
analogous to net and net-next trees for networking. Both bpf and
|
|
bpf-next will only have a master branch in order to simplify against
|
|
which branch patches should get rebased to.
|
|
|
|
Accumulated BPF patches in the bpf tree will regularly get pulled
|
|
into the net kernel tree. Likewise, accumulated BPF patches accepted
|
|
into the bpf-next tree will make their way into net-next tree. net and
|
|
net-next are both run by David S. Miller. From there, they will go
|
|
into the kernel mainline tree run by Linus Torvalds. To read up on the
|
|
process of net and net-next being merged into the mainline tree, see
|
|
the :ref:`netdev-FAQ`
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Occasionally, to prevent merge conflicts, we might send pull requests
|
|
to other trees (e.g. tracing) with a small subset of the patches, but
|
|
net and net-next are always the main trees targeted for integration.
|
|
|
|
The pull requests will contain a high-level summary of the accumulated
|
|
patches and can be searched on netdev kernel mailing list through the
|
|
following subject lines (``yyyy-mm-dd`` is the date of the pull
|
|
request)::
|
|
|
|
pull-request: bpf yyyy-mm-dd
|
|
pull-request: bpf-next yyyy-mm-dd
|
|
|
|
Q: How do I indicate which tree (bpf vs. bpf-next) my patch should be applied to?
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
A: The process is the very same as described in the :ref:`netdev-FAQ`,
|
|
so please read up on it. The subject line must indicate whether the
|
|
patch is a fix or rather "next-like" content in order to let the
|
|
maintainers know whether it is targeted at bpf or bpf-next.
|
|
|
|
For fixes eventually landing in bpf -> net tree, the subject must
|
|
look like::
|
|
|
|
git format-patch --subject-prefix='PATCH bpf' start..finish
|
|
|
|
For features/improvements/etc that should eventually land in
|
|
bpf-next -> net-next, the subject must look like::
|
|
|
|
git format-patch --subject-prefix='PATCH bpf-next' start..finish
|
|
|
|
If unsure whether the patch or patch series should go into bpf
|
|
or net directly, or bpf-next or net-next directly, it is not a
|
|
problem either if the subject line says net or net-next as target.
|
|
It is eventually up to the maintainers to do the delegation of
|
|
the patches.
|
|
|
|
If it is clear that patches should go into bpf or bpf-next tree,
|
|
please make sure to rebase the patches against those trees in
|
|
order to reduce potential conflicts.
|
|
|
|
In case the patch or patch series has to be reworked and sent out
|
|
again in a second or later revision, it is also required to add a
|
|
version number (``v2``, ``v3``, ...) into the subject prefix::
|
|
|
|
git format-patch --subject-prefix='PATCH net-next v2' start..finish
|
|
|
|
When changes have been requested to the patch series, always send the
|
|
whole patch series again with the feedback incorporated (never send
|
|
individual diffs on top of the old series).
|
|
|
|
Q: What does it mean when a patch gets applied to bpf or bpf-next tree?
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
A: It means that the patch looks good for mainline inclusion from
|
|
a BPF point of view.
|
|
|
|
Be aware that this is not a final verdict that the patch will
|
|
automatically get accepted into net or net-next trees eventually:
|
|
|
|
On the bpf kernel mailing list reviews can come in at any point
|
|
in time. If discussions around a patch conclude that they cannot
|
|
get included as-is, we will either apply a follow-up fix or drop
|
|
them from the trees entirely. Therefore, we also reserve to rebase
|
|
the trees when deemed necessary. After all, the purpose of the tree
|
|
is to:
|
|
|
|
i) accumulate and stage BPF patches for integration into trees
|
|
like net and net-next, and
|
|
|
|
ii) run extensive BPF test suite and
|
|
workloads on the patches before they make their way any further.
|
|
|
|
Once the BPF pull request was accepted by David S. Miller, then
|
|
the patches end up in net or net-next tree, respectively, and
|
|
make their way from there further into mainline. Again, see the
|
|
:ref:`netdev-FAQ` for additional information e.g. on how often they are
|
|
merged to mainline.
|
|
|
|
Q: How long do I need to wait for feedback on my BPF patches?
|
|
-------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
A: We try to keep the latency low. The usual time to feedback will
|
|
be around 2 or 3 business days. It may vary depending on the
|
|
complexity of changes and current patch load.
|
|
|
|
Q: How often do you send pull requests to major kernel trees like net or net-next?
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
A: Pull requests will be sent out rather often in order to not
|
|
accumulate too many patches in bpf or bpf-next.
|
|
|
|
As a rule of thumb, expect pull requests for each tree regularly
|
|
at the end of the week. In some cases pull requests could additionally
|
|
come also in the middle of the week depending on the current patch
|
|
load or urgency.
|
|
|
|
Q: Are patches applied to bpf-next when the merge window is open?
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
A: For the time when the merge window is open, bpf-next will not be
|
|
processed. This is roughly analogous to net-next patch processing,
|
|
so feel free to read up on the :ref:`netdev-FAQ` about further details.
|
|
|
|
During those two weeks of merge window, we might ask you to resend
|
|
your patch series once bpf-next is open again. Once Linus released
|
|
a ``v*-rc1`` after the merge window, we continue processing of bpf-next.
|
|
|
|
For non-subscribers to kernel mailing lists, there is also a status
|
|
page run by David S. Miller on net-next that provides guidance:
|
|
|
|
http://vger.kernel.org/~davem/net-next.html
|
|
|
|
Q: Verifier changes and test cases
|
|
----------------------------------
|
|
Q: I made a BPF verifier change, do I need to add test cases for
|
|
BPF kernel selftests_?
|
|
|
|
A: If the patch has changes to the behavior of the verifier, then yes,
|
|
it is absolutely necessary to add test cases to the BPF kernel
|
|
selftests_ suite. If they are not present and we think they are
|
|
needed, then we might ask for them before accepting any changes.
|
|
|
|
In particular, test_verifier.c is tracking a high number of BPF test
|
|
cases, including a lot of corner cases that LLVM BPF back end may
|
|
generate out of the restricted C code. Thus, adding test cases is
|
|
absolutely crucial to make sure future changes do not accidentally
|
|
affect prior use-cases. Thus, treat those test cases as: verifier
|
|
behavior that is not tracked in test_verifier.c could potentially
|
|
be subject to change.
|
|
|
|
Q: samples/bpf preference vs selftests?
|
|
---------------------------------------
|
|
Q: When should I add code to `samples/bpf/`_ and when to BPF kernel
|
|
selftests_ ?
|
|
|
|
A: In general, we prefer additions to BPF kernel selftests_ rather than
|
|
`samples/bpf/`_. The rationale is very simple: kernel selftests are
|
|
regularly run by various bots to test for kernel regressions.
|
|
|
|
The more test cases we add to BPF selftests, the better the coverage
|
|
and the less likely it is that those could accidentally break. It is
|
|
not that BPF kernel selftests cannot demo how a specific feature can
|
|
be used.
|
|
|
|
That said, `samples/bpf/`_ may be a good place for people to get started,
|
|
so it might be advisable that simple demos of features could go into
|
|
`samples/bpf/`_, but advanced functional and corner-case testing rather
|
|
into kernel selftests.
|
|
|
|
If your sample looks like a test case, then go for BPF kernel selftests
|
|
instead!
|
|
|
|
Q: When should I add code to the bpftool?
|
|
-----------------------------------------
|
|
A: The main purpose of bpftool (under tools/bpf/bpftool/) is to provide
|
|
a central user space tool for debugging and introspection of BPF programs
|
|
and maps that are active in the kernel. If UAPI changes related to BPF
|
|
enable for dumping additional information of programs or maps, then
|
|
bpftool should be extended as well to support dumping them.
|
|
|
|
Q: When should I add code to iproute2's BPF loader?
|
|
---------------------------------------------------
|
|
A: For UAPI changes related to the XDP or tc layer (e.g. ``cls_bpf``),
|
|
the convention is that those control-path related changes are added to
|
|
iproute2's BPF loader as well from user space side. This is not only
|
|
useful to have UAPI changes properly designed to be usable, but also
|
|
to make those changes available to a wider user base of major
|
|
downstream distributions.
|
|
|
|
Q: Do you accept patches as well for iproute2's BPF loader?
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------
|
|
A: Patches for the iproute2's BPF loader have to be sent to:
|
|
|
|
netdev@vger.kernel.org
|
|
|
|
While those patches are not processed by the BPF kernel maintainers,
|
|
please keep them in Cc as well, so they can be reviewed.
|
|
|
|
The official git repository for iproute2 is run by Stephen Hemminger
|
|
and can be found at:
|
|
|
|
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/shemminger/iproute2.git/
|
|
|
|
The patches need to have a subject prefix of '``[PATCH iproute2
|
|
master]``' or '``[PATCH iproute2 net-next]``'. '``master``' or
|
|
'``net-next``' describes the target branch where the patch should be
|
|
applied to. Meaning, if kernel changes went into the net-next kernel
|
|
tree, then the related iproute2 changes need to go into the iproute2
|
|
net-next branch, otherwise they can be targeted at master branch. The
|
|
iproute2 net-next branch will get merged into the master branch after
|
|
the current iproute2 version from master has been released.
|
|
|
|
Like BPF, the patches end up in patchwork under the netdev project and
|
|
are delegated to 'shemminger' for further processing:
|
|
|
|
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/list/?delegate=389
|
|
|
|
Q: What is the minimum requirement before I submit my BPF patches?
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
A: When submitting patches, always take the time and properly test your
|
|
patches *prior* to submission. Never rush them! If maintainers find
|
|
that your patches have not been properly tested, it is a good way to
|
|
get them grumpy. Testing patch submissions is a hard requirement!
|
|
|
|
Note, fixes that go to bpf tree *must* have a ``Fixes:`` tag included.
|
|
The same applies to fixes that target bpf-next, where the affected
|
|
commit is in net-next (or in some cases bpf-next). The ``Fixes:`` tag is
|
|
crucial in order to identify follow-up commits and tremendously helps
|
|
for people having to do backporting, so it is a must have!
|
|
|
|
We also don't accept patches with an empty commit message. Take your
|
|
time and properly write up a high quality commit message, it is
|
|
essential!
|
|
|
|
Think about it this way: other developers looking at your code a month
|
|
from now need to understand *why* a certain change has been done that
|
|
way, and whether there have been flaws in the analysis or assumptions
|
|
that the original author did. Thus providing a proper rationale and
|
|
describing the use-case for the changes is a must.
|
|
|
|
Patch submissions with >1 patch must have a cover letter which includes
|
|
a high level description of the series. This high level summary will
|
|
then be placed into the merge commit by the BPF maintainers such that
|
|
it is also accessible from the git log for future reference.
|
|
|
|
Q: Features changing BPF JIT and/or LLVM
|
|
----------------------------------------
|
|
Q: What do I need to consider when adding a new instruction or feature
|
|
that would require BPF JIT and/or LLVM integration as well?
|
|
|
|
A: We try hard to keep all BPF JITs up to date such that the same user
|
|
experience can be guaranteed when running BPF programs on different
|
|
architectures without having the program punt to the less efficient
|
|
interpreter in case the in-kernel BPF JIT is enabled.
|
|
|
|
If you are unable to implement or test the required JIT changes for
|
|
certain architectures, please work together with the related BPF JIT
|
|
developers in order to get the feature implemented in a timely manner.
|
|
Please refer to the git log (``arch/*/net/``) to locate the necessary
|
|
people for helping out.
|
|
|
|
Also always make sure to add BPF test cases (e.g. test_bpf.c and
|
|
test_verifier.c) for new instructions, so that they can receive
|
|
broad test coverage and help run-time testing the various BPF JITs.
|
|
|
|
In case of new BPF instructions, once the changes have been accepted
|
|
into the Linux kernel, please implement support into LLVM's BPF back
|
|
end. See LLVM_ section below for further information.
|
|
|
|
Stable submission
|
|
=================
|
|
|
|
Q: I need a specific BPF commit in stable kernels. What should I do?
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
A: In case you need a specific fix in stable kernels, first check whether
|
|
the commit has already been applied in the related ``linux-*.y`` branches:
|
|
|
|
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/
|
|
|
|
If not the case, then drop an email to the BPF maintainers with the
|
|
netdev kernel mailing list in Cc and ask for the fix to be queued up:
|
|
|
|
netdev@vger.kernel.org
|
|
|
|
The process in general is the same as on netdev itself, see also the
|
|
:ref:`netdev-FAQ`.
|
|
|
|
Q: Do you also backport to kernels not currently maintained as stable?
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
A: No. If you need a specific BPF commit in kernels that are currently not
|
|
maintained by the stable maintainers, then you are on your own.
|
|
|
|
The current stable and longterm stable kernels are all listed here:
|
|
|
|
https://www.kernel.org/
|
|
|
|
Q: The BPF patch I am about to submit needs to go to stable as well
|
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
What should I do?
|
|
|
|
A: The same rules apply as with netdev patch submissions in general, see
|
|
the :ref:`netdev-FAQ`.
|
|
|
|
Never add "``Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org``" to the patch description, but
|
|
ask the BPF maintainers to queue the patches instead. This can be done
|
|
with a note, for example, under the ``---`` part of the patch which does
|
|
not go into the git log. Alternatively, this can be done as a simple
|
|
request by mail instead.
|
|
|
|
Q: Queue stable patches
|
|
-----------------------
|
|
Q: Where do I find currently queued BPF patches that will be submitted
|
|
to stable?
|
|
|
|
A: Once patches that fix critical bugs got applied into the bpf tree, they
|
|
are queued up for stable submission under:
|
|
|
|
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/bundle/bpf/stable/?state=*
|
|
|
|
They will be on hold there at minimum until the related commit made its
|
|
way into the mainline kernel tree.
|
|
|
|
After having been under broader exposure, the queued patches will be
|
|
submitted by the BPF maintainers to the stable maintainers.
|
|
|
|
Testing patches
|
|
===============
|
|
|
|
Q: How to run BPF selftests
|
|
---------------------------
|
|
A: After you have booted into the newly compiled kernel, navigate to
|
|
the BPF selftests_ suite in order to test BPF functionality (current
|
|
working directory points to the root of the cloned git tree)::
|
|
|
|
$ cd tools/testing/selftests/bpf/
|
|
$ make
|
|
|
|
To run the verifier tests::
|
|
|
|
$ sudo ./test_verifier
|
|
|
|
The verifier tests print out all the current checks being
|
|
performed. The summary at the end of running all tests will dump
|
|
information of test successes and failures::
|
|
|
|
Summary: 418 PASSED, 0 FAILED
|
|
|
|
In order to run through all BPF selftests, the following command is
|
|
needed::
|
|
|
|
$ sudo make run_tests
|
|
|
|
See the kernels selftest `Documentation/dev-tools/kselftest.rst`_
|
|
document for further documentation.
|
|
|
|
To maximize the number of tests passing, the .config of the kernel
|
|
under test should match the config file fragment in
|
|
tools/testing/selftests/bpf as closely as possible.
|
|
|
|
Finally to ensure support for latest BPF Type Format features -
|
|
discussed in `Documentation/bpf/btf.rst`_ - pahole version 1.16
|
|
is required for kernels built with CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF=y.
|
|
pahole is delivered in the dwarves package or can be built
|
|
from source at
|
|
|
|
https://github.com/acmel/dwarves
|
|
|
|
Some distros have pahole version 1.16 packaged already, e.g.
|
|
Fedora, Gentoo.
|
|
|
|
Q: Which BPF kernel selftests version should I run my kernel against?
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
A: If you run a kernel ``xyz``, then always run the BPF kernel selftests
|
|
from that kernel ``xyz`` as well. Do not expect that the BPF selftest
|
|
from the latest mainline tree will pass all the time.
|
|
|
|
In particular, test_bpf.c and test_verifier.c have a large number of
|
|
test cases and are constantly updated with new BPF test sequences, or
|
|
existing ones are adapted to verifier changes e.g. due to verifier
|
|
becoming smarter and being able to better track certain things.
|
|
|
|
LLVM
|
|
====
|
|
|
|
Q: Where do I find LLVM with BPF support?
|
|
-----------------------------------------
|
|
A: The BPF back end for LLVM is upstream in LLVM since version 3.7.1.
|
|
|
|
All major distributions these days ship LLVM with BPF back end enabled,
|
|
so for the majority of use-cases it is not required to compile LLVM by
|
|
hand anymore, just install the distribution provided package.
|
|
|
|
LLVM's static compiler lists the supported targets through
|
|
``llc --version``, make sure BPF targets are listed. Example::
|
|
|
|
$ llc --version
|
|
LLVM (http://llvm.org/):
|
|
LLVM version 6.0.0svn
|
|
Optimized build.
|
|
Default target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
|
|
Host CPU: skylake
|
|
|
|
Registered Targets:
|
|
bpf - BPF (host endian)
|
|
bpfeb - BPF (big endian)
|
|
bpfel - BPF (little endian)
|
|
x86 - 32-bit X86: Pentium-Pro and above
|
|
x86-64 - 64-bit X86: EM64T and AMD64
|
|
|
|
For developers in order to utilize the latest features added to LLVM's
|
|
BPF back end, it is advisable to run the latest LLVM releases. Support
|
|
for new BPF kernel features such as additions to the BPF instruction
|
|
set are often developed together.
|
|
|
|
All LLVM releases can be found at: http://releases.llvm.org/
|
|
|
|
Q: Got it, so how do I build LLVM manually anyway?
|
|
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
A: You need cmake and gcc-c++ as build requisites for LLVM. Once you have
|
|
that set up, proceed with building the latest LLVM and clang version
|
|
from the git repositories::
|
|
|
|
$ git clone https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project.git
|
|
$ mkdir -p llvm-project/llvm/build/install
|
|
$ cd llvm-project/llvm/build
|
|
$ cmake .. -G "Ninja" -DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD="BPF;X86" \
|
|
-DLLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS="clang" \
|
|
-DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS=OFF \
|
|
-DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release \
|
|
-DLLVM_BUILD_RUNTIME=OFF
|
|
$ ninja
|
|
|
|
The built binaries can then be found in the build/bin/ directory, where
|
|
you can point the PATH variable to.
|
|
|
|
Q: Reporting LLVM BPF issues
|
|
----------------------------
|
|
Q: Should I notify BPF kernel maintainers about issues in LLVM's BPF code
|
|
generation back end or about LLVM generated code that the verifier
|
|
refuses to accept?
|
|
|
|
A: Yes, please do!
|
|
|
|
LLVM's BPF back end is a key piece of the whole BPF
|
|
infrastructure and it ties deeply into verification of programs from the
|
|
kernel side. Therefore, any issues on either side need to be investigated
|
|
and fixed whenever necessary.
|
|
|
|
Therefore, please make sure to bring them up at netdev kernel mailing
|
|
list and Cc BPF maintainers for LLVM and kernel bits:
|
|
|
|
* Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
|
|
* Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
|
* Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
|
|
|
|
LLVM also has an issue tracker where BPF related bugs can be found:
|
|
|
|
https://bugs.llvm.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=bpf
|
|
|
|
However, it is better to reach out through mailing lists with having
|
|
maintainers in Cc.
|
|
|
|
Q: New BPF instruction for kernel and LLVM
|
|
------------------------------------------
|
|
Q: I have added a new BPF instruction to the kernel, how can I integrate
|
|
it into LLVM?
|
|
|
|
A: LLVM has a ``-mcpu`` selector for the BPF back end in order to allow
|
|
the selection of BPF instruction set extensions. By default the
|
|
``generic`` processor target is used, which is the base instruction set
|
|
(v1) of BPF.
|
|
|
|
LLVM has an option to select ``-mcpu=probe`` where it will probe the host
|
|
kernel for supported BPF instruction set extensions and selects the
|
|
optimal set automatically.
|
|
|
|
For cross-compilation, a specific version can be select manually as well ::
|
|
|
|
$ llc -march bpf -mcpu=help
|
|
Available CPUs for this target:
|
|
|
|
generic - Select the generic processor.
|
|
probe - Select the probe processor.
|
|
v1 - Select the v1 processor.
|
|
v2 - Select the v2 processor.
|
|
[...]
|
|
|
|
Newly added BPF instructions to the Linux kernel need to follow the same
|
|
scheme, bump the instruction set version and implement probing for the
|
|
extensions such that ``-mcpu=probe`` users can benefit from the
|
|
optimization transparently when upgrading their kernels.
|
|
|
|
If you are unable to implement support for the newly added BPF instruction
|
|
please reach out to BPF developers for help.
|
|
|
|
By the way, the BPF kernel selftests run with ``-mcpu=probe`` for better
|
|
test coverage.
|
|
|
|
Q: clang flag for target bpf?
|
|
-----------------------------
|
|
Q: In some cases clang flag ``-target bpf`` is used but in other cases the
|
|
default clang target, which matches the underlying architecture, is used.
|
|
What is the difference and when I should use which?
|
|
|
|
A: Although LLVM IR generation and optimization try to stay architecture
|
|
independent, ``-target <arch>`` still has some impact on generated code:
|
|
|
|
- BPF program may recursively include header file(s) with file scope
|
|
inline assembly codes. The default target can handle this well,
|
|
while ``bpf`` target may fail if bpf backend assembler does not
|
|
understand these assembly codes, which is true in most cases.
|
|
|
|
- When compiled without ``-g``, additional elf sections, e.g.,
|
|
.eh_frame and .rela.eh_frame, may be present in the object file
|
|
with default target, but not with ``bpf`` target.
|
|
|
|
- The default target may turn a C switch statement into a switch table
|
|
lookup and jump operation. Since the switch table is placed
|
|
in the global readonly section, the bpf program will fail to load.
|
|
The bpf target does not support switch table optimization.
|
|
The clang option ``-fno-jump-tables`` can be used to disable
|
|
switch table generation.
|
|
|
|
- For clang ``-target bpf``, it is guaranteed that pointer or long /
|
|
unsigned long types will always have a width of 64 bit, no matter
|
|
whether underlying clang binary or default target (or kernel) is
|
|
32 bit. However, when native clang target is used, then it will
|
|
compile these types based on the underlying architecture's conventions,
|
|
meaning in case of 32 bit architecture, pointer or long / unsigned
|
|
long types e.g. in BPF context structure will have width of 32 bit
|
|
while the BPF LLVM back end still operates in 64 bit. The native
|
|
target is mostly needed in tracing for the case of walking ``pt_regs``
|
|
or other kernel structures where CPU's register width matters.
|
|
Otherwise, ``clang -target bpf`` is generally recommended.
|
|
|
|
You should use default target when:
|
|
|
|
- Your program includes a header file, e.g., ptrace.h, which eventually
|
|
pulls in some header files containing file scope host assembly codes.
|
|
|
|
- You can add ``-fno-jump-tables`` to work around the switch table issue.
|
|
|
|
Otherwise, you can use ``bpf`` target. Additionally, you *must* use bpf target
|
|
when:
|
|
|
|
- Your program uses data structures with pointer or long / unsigned long
|
|
types that interface with BPF helpers or context data structures. Access
|
|
into these structures is verified by the BPF verifier and may result
|
|
in verification failures if the native architecture is not aligned with
|
|
the BPF architecture, e.g. 64-bit. An example of this is
|
|
BPF_PROG_TYPE_SK_MSG require ``-target bpf``
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. Links
|
|
.. _Documentation/process/: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/
|
|
.. _MAINTAINERS: ../../MAINTAINERS
|
|
.. _netdev-FAQ: ../networking/netdev-FAQ.rst
|
|
.. _samples/bpf/: ../../samples/bpf/
|
|
.. _selftests: ../../tools/testing/selftests/bpf/
|
|
.. _Documentation/dev-tools/kselftest.rst:
|
|
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/dev-tools/kselftest.html
|
|
.. _Documentation/bpf/btf.rst: btf.rst
|
|
|
|
Happy BPF hacking!
|