You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
BPF: Use DebugLoc to find Filename for BTF line info
Andrii found an issue where the BTF line info may have empty
source which seems wrong. The program is a Meta internal
bpf program. I can reproduce with latest upstream compiler
as well. Let the bpf program built without this patch and then with
the following veristat check where veristat is a bpf verifier tool
to do kernel verification for bpf programs:
$ veristat -vl2 yhs.bpf.o --log-size=150000000 >& log
$ rg '^;' log | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr | head -n10
4206 ; } else if (action->dry_run) { @ src_mitigations.h:57
3907 ; if (now < start_allow_time) { @ ban.h:17
3674 ; @ src_mitigations.h:0
3223 ; if (action->vip_id != ALL_VIPS_ID && action->vip_id != vip_id) { @ src_mitigations.h:85
1737 ; pkt_info->is_dry_run_drop = action->dry_run; @ src_mitigations.h:26
1737 ; if (mitigation == ALLOW) { @ src_mitigations.h:28
1737 ; enum match_action mitigation = action->action; @ src_mitigations.h:25
1727 ; void* res = bpf_map_lookup_elem(bpf_map, key); @ filter_helpers.h:498
1691 ; bpf_map_lookup_elem(&rate_limit_config_map, rule_id); @ rate_limit.h:76
1688 ; if (throttle_cfg) { @ rate_limit.h:85
You can see
3674 ; @ src_mitigations.h:0
where we do not have proper line information and line number.
In LLVM Machine IR, some instructions may carry DebugLoc information
to specify where the corresponding source is for this instruction.
The information includes file_name, line_num and col_num.
Each instruction may also attribute to a function in debuginfo.
So there are two ways to find file_name for a particular insn:
(1) find the corresponding function in debuginfo
(MI->getMF()->getFunction().getSubprogram()) and then
find the file_name from DISubprogram.
(2) find the corresponding file_name from DebugLoc.
The option (1) is used in current implementation. This mostly works.
But if one instruction is somehow generated from multiple functions,
the compiler has to pick just one. This may cause a mismatch between
file_name and line_num/col_num. This is exactly what happened
in the previous example. I found bpf selftests also have some
cases where file names from DISubprogram and DebugLoc are different.
It looks like that finding file_name from DebugLoc is more
robust since all of file_name/line_num/col_num are from
the same entity. This patch used this approach. With this
patch, we have:
$ veristat -vl2 yhs.bpf.o --log-size=150000000 >& log
$ rg '^;' log.latest | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr | head -n10
4206 ; } else if (action->dry_run) { @ src_mitigations.h:57
3907 ; if (now < start_allow_time) { @ ban.h:17
3223 ; if (action->vip_id != ALL_VIPS_ID && action->vip_id != vip_id) { @ src_mitigations.h:85
1737 ; pkt_info->is_dry_run_drop = action->dry_run; @ src_mitigations.h:26
1737 ; if (mitigation == ALLOW) { @ src_mitigations.h:28
1737 ; enum match_action mitigation = action->action; @ src_mitigations.h:25
1727 ; void* res = bpf_map_lookup_elem(bpf_map, key); @ filter_helpers.h:498
1691 ; bpf_map_lookup_elem(&rate_limit_config_map, rule_id); @ rate_limit.h:76
1688 ; if (throttle_cfg) { @ rate_limit.h:85
1670 ; if (rl_cfg) { @ rate_limit.h:77
You can see that we do not have empty line any more.
3223 ; if (action->vip_id != ALL_VIPS_ID && action->vip_id != vip_id) { @ src_mitigations.h:85
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
0 commit comments