[PATCH] D67980: [WIP][CLANG][BPF] do compile-once run-everywhere relocation for bitfields

[Yonghong Song via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

yonghong-song marked 9 inline comments as done.
yonghong-song added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CGBuiltin.cpp:9321-9322
+  if (IsError)
+    return IsBitField ? EmitLValue(Arg).getBitFieldPointer()
+                      : EmitLValue(Arg).getPointer();
+
----------------
anakryiko wrote:
> move this under `if (!getDebugInfo)` above and ditch IsError completely?
yes. previously I have two case of errors. Now only have one, it makes sense to merge them.


================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Target/BPF/BPFAbstractMemberAccess.cpp:235
       report_fatal_error("Missing metadata for llvm.preserve.array.access.index intrinsic");
-    AccessIndex = cast<ConstantInt>(Call->getArgOperand(2))
-                      ->getZExtValue();
+    AccessIndex = getConstant(Call->getArgOperand(2));
     return true;
----------------
anakryiko wrote:
> getConstant returns u64, but AccessIndex is u32, is that a concern?
it should be okay. the call is generated by clang where the access index will be in the range. Also, llvm ConstantInt class can only return 64bit values.
https://llvm.org/doxygen/classllvm_1_1ConstantInt.html
We just do the cast here. should be okay.


================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Target/BPF/BPFAbstractMemberAccess.cpp:254
+  }
+  if (GV->getName().startswith("llvm.bpf.get.field.info")) {
+    Kind = BPFGetFieldInfoAI;
----------------
anakryiko wrote:
> just curious, why did you decide to not follow llvm.preserve.xxx pattern here? E.g., llvm.preserve.field.info would read just fine, I guess?
previously i am using preserve.field.info and switch to get.field.info as it is indeed to return certain field info to the user. maybe we should get back to preserve.field.info to indicate that relocation is generated. will do.


================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Target/BPF/BPFAbstractMemberAccess.cpp:533
+  auto *MemberTy = cast<DIDerivedType>(CTy->getElements()[AccessIndex]);
+  assert(MemberTy->isBitField());
+  uint64_t OffsetInBits = MemberTy->getOffsetInBits();
----------------
anakryiko wrote:
> is it possible to allow capturing same bitfield information for non-bitfield integers?
> 
> E.g, if my current vmlinux.h has some field as plain integer, but I know that some older kernel (or maybe future kernels?) had this field as a bitfield, I won't have to do anything nasty just to handle this generically. The less artificial restrictions we have, the better, IMO.
Yes, we can remove this restriction. Let us first get bitfield interface right and then extend them to nonbitfield.


================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Target/BPF/BPFAbstractMemberAccess.cpp:536
+  uint64_t SizeInBits = MemberTy->getSizeInBits();
+  assert(SizeInBits <= 63);
+  switch (InfoKind) {
----------------
anakryiko wrote:
> I think we should be generic here and allow up to 128 bits and let libbpf handle its limitations separately (e.g., if we can't support >64 bits initially, libbpf will reject the program; but if we ever extend the support, at least we won't have to go back to Clang and fix it up).
We can do this.


================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Target/BPF/BPFAbstractMemberAccess.cpp:541-548
+  case BPFCoreSharedInfo::BTF_FIELD_BF_BYTE_OFFSET_64BIT_ALIGN:
+    PatchImm = (OffsetInBits & ~0x3f) >> 3;
+    break;
+  case BPFCoreSharedInfo::BTF_FIELD_BF_LSHIFT_64BIT_ALIGN:
+    PatchImm = OffsetInBits & 0x3f;
+    break;
+  case BPFCoreSharedInfo::BTF_FIELD_BF_RSHIFT_64BIT_ALIGN:
----------------
anakryiko wrote:
> I'll need to do some drawing and math to check how this is going to be handled in big-endian and little-endian, I'll get back to you later with that.
sounds great.


================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Target/BPF/BPFAbstractMemberAccess.cpp:600
+
+      PatchImm += FirstIndex * Ty->getSizeInBits() >> 3;
       break;
----------------
anakryiko wrote:
> nit: I can't from the top of my head figure out what takes precedence: shift or multiplication, maybe add parens to make it obvious?
sure.


================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Target/BPF/BTFDebug.cpp:1163
+        // Emit "mov ri, <imm>" for patched immediate.
+        int64_t Imm = PatchImms[GVar->getName().str()];
         OutMI.setOpcode(BPF::MOV_ri);
----------------
anakryiko wrote:
> why int64?
Will change to u32.


================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Target/BPF/BTFDebug.h:227
 /// Represent one offset relocation.
 struct BTFOffsetReloc {
   const MCSymbol *Label;  ///< MCSymbol identifying insn for the reloc
----------------
anakryiko wrote:
> nit: this is not BTFOffsetReloc anymore, more like BTFFieldReloc
Yes, it becomes FieldReloc now.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D67980/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D67980