[llvm-dev] put "str" in __attribute__((annotate("str"))) to dwarf

[David Blaikie via llvm-dev]

On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 12:25 PM Y Song <ys114321 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 9:59 AM Alexei Starovoitov
> <alexei.starovoitov at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 07:17:32AM -0400, Aaron Ballman wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 8:47 PM Alexei Starovoitov
> > > <alexei.starovoitov at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 12:42 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Any suggestions/preferences for the spelling, Aaron?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I don't know this domain particularly well, so takes these
> suggestions
> > > > >> with a giant grain of salt:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> If the concept is specific to DWARF and you don't think it'll
> need to
> > > > >> extend into other debug formats, you could go with
> `dwarf_annotate`.
> > > > >> If it's not really a DWARF thing but is more about B[P|T]F, then
> > > > >> `btf_annotate`  or `bpf_annotate` could work, but those may be a
> bit
> > > > >> mysterious to folks outside of the domain. If it's a generic debug
> > > > >> info concept, probably `debug_info_annotate` or something.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Arguably it can/could be a generic debug info or dwarf thing, but
> for now we don't have any use for it other than to squirrel info along to
> BTF/BPF so I'm on the fence about which prefix to use exactly
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > A bit more bike shedding colors...
> > > >
> > > > The __rcu and __user annations might be used by the clang itself
> eventually.
> > > > Currently the "sparse" tool is doing this analysis and warns users
> > > > when __rcu pointer is incorrectly accessed in the kernel C code.
> > > > If clang can do that directly that could be a huge selling point
> > > > for folks to switch from gcc to clang for kernel builds.
> > > > The front-end would treat such annotations as arbitrary string, but
> > > > special "building-linux-kernel-pass" would interpret the semantical
> context.
> > >
> > > Are __rcu and __user annotations notionally distinct things from bpf
> > > (and perhaps each other as well)? Distinct enough that it would make
> > > sense to use a different attribute name for user source for each need?
> > > I suspect the answer is yes given that the existing annotations have
> > > their own names which are distinct, but I don't know this domain
> > > enough to be sure.
> >
> > __rcu and __user don't overlap. __rcu is not a single annotation though.
> > It's a combination of annotations in pointers, functions, macros.
> > Some functions have:
> > __acquires(rcu)
> > another function might have:
> > __acquires(rcu_bh)
> > There are several flavors of the RCU in the kernel.
> > So single __attribute__((rcu_annotate("foo"))) won't work even within
> RCU scope.
> > But if we do:
> > struct foo {
> >   void * __attribute__((tag("ptr.rcu_bh")) ptr;
> > };
> > int bar(int) __attribute__((tag("acquires.rcu_bh")) { ... }
> > int baz(int) __attribute__((tag("releases.rcu_bh")) { ... }
> > int qux(int) __attribute__((tag("acquires.rcu_sched")) { ... }
> > ...
> > The clang pass can parse these strings and correlate one tag to another.
> > RCU flavors come and go, so clang cannot hard code the names.
>
> Maybe we can name it as "bpf_tag" as it is a "tag" for "bpf" use case?
>
> David, in one of your early emails, you mentioned:
>
> ===
> Arguably it can/could be a generic debug info or dwarf thing, but for
> now we don't have any use for it other than to squirrel info along to
> BTF/BPF so I'm on the fence about which prefix to use exactly
> ===
>
> and suggests since it might be used in the future for non-bpf things,
> maybe the name could be a little more generic then bpf-specific.
>
> Do you have any suggestions on what name to pick?
>

Nah, not especially. bpf_tag sounds OK-ish to me if it suits you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20210614/f4822236/attachment.html>