[PATCH bpf-next 4/4] bpf: Add selftests for local_storage

[Yonghong Song]

On 6/16/20 12:25 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 8:54 AM KP Singh <kpsingh at chromium.org> wrote:
>> On 01-Jun 13:29, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 9:34 AM KP Singh <kpsingh at chromium.org> wrote:
>>>> From: KP Singh <kpsingh at google.com>
>>>>
>>>> inode_local_storage:
>>>>
>>>> * Hook to the file_open and inode_unlink LSM hooks.
>>>> * Create and unlink a temporary file.
>>>> * Store some information in the inode's bpf_local_storage during
>>>>    file_open.
>>>> * Verify that this information exists when the file is unlinked.
>>>>
>>>> sk_local_storage:
>>>>
>>>> * Hook to the socket_post_create and socket_bind LSM hooks.
>>>> * Open and bind a socket and set the sk_storage in the
>>>>    socket_post_create hook using the start_server helper.
>>>> * Verify if the information is set in the socket_bind hook.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: KP Singh <kpsingh at google.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>   .../bpf/prog_tests/test_local_storage.c       |  60 ++++++++
>>>>   .../selftests/bpf/progs/local_storage.c       | 139 ++++++++++++++++++
>>>>   2 files changed, 199 insertions(+)
>>>>   create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_local_storage.c
>>>>   create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/local_storage.c
>>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> +struct dummy_storage {
>>>> +       __u32 value;
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +struct {
>>>> +       __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_INODE_STORAGE);
>>>> +       __uint(map_flags, BPF_F_NO_PREALLOC);
>>>> +       __type(key, int);
>>>> +       __type(value, struct dummy_storage);
>>>> +} inode_storage_map SEC(".maps");
>>>> +
>>>> +struct {
>>>> +       __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_SK_STORAGE);
>>>> +       __uint(map_flags, BPF_F_NO_PREALLOC | BPF_F_CLONE);
>>>> +       __type(key, int);
>>>> +       __type(value, struct dummy_storage);
>>>> +} sk_storage_map SEC(".maps");
>>>> +
>>>> +/* Using vmlinux.h causes the generated BTF to be so big that the object
>>>> + * load fails at btf__load.
>>>> + */
>>> That's first time I hear about such issue. Do you have an error log
>>> from verifier?
>> Here's what I get when I do the following change.
>>
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/local_storage.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/local_storage.c
>> @@ -4,8 +4,8 @@
>>    * Copyright 2020 Google LLC.
>>    */
>>
>> +#include "vmlinux.h"
>>   #include <errno.h>
>> -#include <linux/bpf.h>
>>   #include <stdbool.h>
>>   #include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
>>   #include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
>> @@ -37,24 +37,6 @@ struct {
>>          __type(value, struct dummy_storage);
>>   } sk_storage_map SEC(".maps");
>>
>> -/* Using vmlinux.h causes the generated BTF to be so big that the object
>> - * load fails at btf__load.
>> - */
>> -struct sock {} __attribute__((preserve_access_index));
>> -struct sockaddr {} __attribute__((preserve_access_index));
>> -struct socket {
>> -       struct sock *sk;
>> -} __attribute__((preserve_access_index));
>> -
>> -struct inode {} __attribute__((preserve_access_index));
>> -struct dentry {
>> -       struct inode *d_inode;
>> -} __attribute__((preserve_access_index));
>> -struct file {
>> -       struct inode *f_inode;
>> -} __attribute__((preserve_access_index));
>>
>> ./test_progs -t test_local_storage
>> libbpf: Error loading BTF: Invalid argument(22)
>> libbpf: magic: 0xeb9f
>> version: 1
>> flags: 0x0
>> hdr_len: 24
>> type_off: 0
>> type_len: 4488
>> str_off: 4488
>> str_len: 3012
>> btf_total_size: 7524
>>
>> [1] STRUCT (anon) size=32 vlen=4
>>          type type_id=2 bits_offset=0
>>          map_flags type_id=6 bits_offset=64
>>          key type_id=8 bits_offset=128
>>          value type_id=9 bits_offset=192
>> [2] PTR (anon) type_id=4
>> [3] INT int size=4 bits_offset=0 nr_bits=32 encoding=SIGNED
>> [4] ARRAY (anon) type_id=3 index_type_id=5 nr_elems=28
>> [5] INT __ARRAY_SIZE_TYPE__ size=4 bits_offset=0 nr_bits=32 encoding=(none)
>> [6] PTR (anon) type_id=7
>> [7] ARRAY (anon) type_id=3 index_type_id=5 nr_elems=1
>> [8] PTR (anon) type_id=3
>> [9] PTR (anon) type_id=10
>> [10] STRUCT dummy_storage size=4 vlen=1
>>          value type_id=11 bits_offset=0
>> [11] TYPEDEF __u32 type_id=12
>>
>>    [... More BTF Dump ...]
>>
>> [91] TYPEDEF wait_queue_head_t type_id=175
>>
>>    [... More BTF Dump ...]
>>
>> [173] FWD super_block struct
>> [174] FWD vfsmount struct
>> [175] FWD wait_queue_head struct
>> [106] STRUCT socket_wq size=128 vlen=4
>>          wait type_id=91 bits_offset=0 Invalid member
>>
>> libbpf: Error loading .BTF into kernel: -22.
>> libbpf: map 'inode_storage_map': failed to create: Invalid argument(-22)
>> libbpf: failed to load object 'local_storage'
>> libbpf: failed to load BPF skeleton 'local_storage': -22
>> test_test_local_storage:FAIL:skel_load lsm skeleton failed
>> #81 test_local_storage:FAIL
>>
>> The failiure is in:
>>
>> [106] STRUCT socket_wq size=128 vlen=4
>>          wait type_id=91 bits_offset=0 Invalid member
>>
>>> Clang is smart enough to trim down used types to only those that are
>>> actually necessary, so too big BTF shouldn't be a thing. But let's try
>>> to dig into this and fix whatever issue it is, before giving up :)
>>>
>> I was wrong about the size being an issue. The verifier thinks the BTF
>> is invalid and more specificially it thinks that the socket_wq's
>> member with type_id=91, i.e. typedef wait_queue_head_t is invalid. Am
>> I missing some toolchain patches?
>>
> It is invalid BTF in the sense that we have a struct, embedding a
> struct, which is only defined as a forward declaration. There is not
> enough information and such situation would have caused compilation
> error, because it's impossible to determine the size of the outer
> struct.
>
> Yonghong, it seems like Clang is pruning types too aggressively here?
> We should keep types that are embedded, even if they are not used
> directly by user code. Could you please take a look?

Yes, this is a llvm bug. The proposed patch is here.

https://reviews.llvm.org/D82041

Will merge into llvm 11 trunk after the review. Not sure

whether we can get it into llvm 10.0.1 or not as its release

date is also very close.


>
>
>
>> - KP
>>
>>
>>>> +struct sock {} __attribute__((preserve_access_index));
>>>> +struct sockaddr {} __attribute__((preserve_access_index));
>>>> +struct socket {
>>>> +       struct sock *sk;
>>>> +} __attribute__((preserve_access_index));
>>>> +
>>>> +struct inode {} __attribute__((preserve_access_index));
>>>> +struct dentry {
>>>> +       struct inode *d_inode;
>>>> +} __attribute__((preserve_access_index));
>>>> +struct file {
>>>> +       struct inode *f_inode;
>>>> +} __attribute__((preserve_access_index));
>>>> +
>>>> +
>>> [...]