Netdev Archive on
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alan Maguire <>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <>
Cc: Alan Maguire <>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <>,
	Daniel Borkmann <>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <>, Martin Lau <>,
	Song Liu <>, Yonghong Song <>,
	john fastabend <>,
	KP Singh <>, Bill Wendling <>,
	Shuah Khan <>, bpf <>,
	Networking <>,
	open list <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/3] libbpf: avoid use of __int128 in typed dump display
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 10:13:48 +0100 (IST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.23.451.2107201002170.11590@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On Mon, 19 Jul 2021, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 2:41 PM Alan Maguire <> wrote:
> >
> > __int128 is not supported for some 32-bit platforms (arm and i386).
> > __int128 was used in carrying out computations on bitfields which
> > aid display, but the same calculations could be done with __u64
> > with the small effect of not supporting 128-bit bitfields.
> >
> > With these changes, a big-endian issue with casting 128-bit integers
> > to 64-bit for enum bitfields is solved also, as we now use 64-bit
> > integers for bitfield calculations.
> >
> > Reported-by: Naresh Kamboju <>
> > Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <>
> > Signed-off-by: Alan Maguire <>
> > ---
> Changes look good to me, thanks. But they didn't appear in patchworks
> yet so I can't easily test and apply them. It might be because of
> patchworks delay or due to a very long CC list. Try trimming the cc
> list down and re-submit?

Done, looks like the v2 with the trimmed cc list made it into patchwork 
this time.
> Also, while I agree that supporting 128-bit bitfields isn't important,
> I wonder if we should warn/error on that (instead of shifting by
> negative amount and reporting some garbage value), what do you think?
> Is there one place in the code where we can error out early if the
> type actually has bitfield with > 64 bits? I'd prefer to keep
> btf_dump_bitfield_get_data() itself non-failing though.

Sorry, I missed the last part and made that function fail since
it's probably the easiest place to capture too-large bitfields.
I renamed it to btf_dump_get_bitfield_value() to match
btf_dump_get_enum_value() which as a similar function signature
(return int, pass in a pointer to the value we want to retrieve).

We can't localize bitfield size checking to 
btf_dump_type_data_check_zero() because - depending on flags -
the associated checks might not be carried out.  So duplication
of bitfield size checks between the zero checking and bitfield/enum 
bitfield display seems inevitable, and that being the case, the
extra error checking required around btf_dump_get_bitfield_value()
seems to be required.

I might be missing a better approach here of course; let me know what you 
think. Thanks again!


  reply	other threads:[~2021-07-20  9:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-07-19 21:41 [PATCH bpf-next 0/3] libbpf: btf typed data dumping fixes (__int128 usage, error propagation) Alan Maguire
2021-07-19 21:41 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/3] libbpf: avoid use of __int128 in typed dump display Alan Maguire
2021-07-19 22:38   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-07-20  9:13     ` Alan Maguire [this message]
2021-07-20 20:51       ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-07-19 21:41 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/3] selftests/bpf: add __int128-specific tests for typed data dump Alan Maguire
2021-07-19 21:41 ` [PATCH bpf-next 3/3] libbpf: propagate errors when retrieving enum value for typed data display Alan Maguire

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=alpine.LRH.2.23.451.2107201002170.11590@localhost \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/3] libbpf: avoid use of __int128 in typed dump display' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).