On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 10:06 AM <mayfieldtristan@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi all, hope everyone is staying healthy out there.

Hi! For the future, I think cc'ing bpf@... would be a good
idea, there are a lot of folks who are probably not watching iovisor
mailing list, but could help with issues like this.

>
> I've been working on building BPF programs, and have run into a few issues that I think might be clang (vs gcc) based.
> It seems that either clang isn't the most friendly of compilers when it comes to building Linux-native programs, or my lack of experience makes it seem so.
> I've been trying to build the simple BPF program below:
>
>
> #include "bpf_helpers.h"
> #include <linux/bpf.h>
> #include <linux/version.h>
> #include <linux/types.h>
> #include <linux/tcp.h>
> #include <net/sock.h>
>
> struct inet_sock_set_state_args {
>         long long pad;
> const void * skaddr;
> int oldstate;
> int newstate;
> u16 sport;
>   u16 dport;
> u16 family;
> u8 protocol;
> u8 saddr[4];
> u8 daddr[4];
> u8 saddr_v6[16];
> u8 daddr_v6[16];
> };
>
>
> SEC("tracepoint/sock/inet_sock_set_state")
> int bpf_prog(struct inet_sock_set_state_args *args) {
>
>   struct sock *sk = (struct sock *)args->skaddr;
>   short lport = args->sport;
>
>   char msg[] = "lport: %d\n";
>   bpf_trace_printk(msg, sizeof(msg), lport);
>
>   return 0;
> }
>
> char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
>
>
>
> I've been looking through selftests/bpf/, samples/bpf/, and examples on various blogs and articles.
> From this, I've come up with the following makefile:
>
>
> ## Build tools
> LLC := llc
> CC := clang
> HOSTCC := clang
> CLANGINC := /usr/lib/llvm-10/lib/clang/10.0.0/include
>
> ## Some useful flags
> INC_FLAGS := -nostdinc -isystem $(CLANGINC)
> EXTRA_FLAGS := -O3 -emit-llvm
>
> ## Includes
> linuxhdrs := /usr/src/linux-headers-$(shell uname -r)
> LINUXINCLUDE := -include $(linuxhdrs)/include/linux/kconfig.h \
> -include /usr/include/linux/bpf.h \
> -I$(linuxhdrs)/arch/x86/include/ \
> -I$(linuxhdrs)/arch/x86/include/uapi \
> -I$(linuxhdrs)/arch/x86/include/generated \
> -I$(linuxhdrs)/arch/x86/include/generated/uapi \
> -I$(linuxhdrs)/include \
> -I$(linuxhdrs)/include/uapi \
> -I$(linuxhdrs)/include/generated/uapi \
> LIBBPF :=  -I/home/vagrant/libbpf/src/
> OBJS := tcptest.bpf.o
>
> $(OBJS): %.o:%.c
> $(CC) $(INC_FLAGS) \
> -target bpf -D__KERNEL__ -D __ASM_SYSREG_H \
> -D__BPF_TRACING__ -D__TARGET_ARCH_$(ARCH) \
> -Wno-unused-value -Wno-pointer-sign \
> -Wno-compare-distinct-pointer-types \
> -Wno-gnu-variable-sized-type-not-at-end \
> -Wno-address-of-packed-member \
> -Wno-tautological-compare \
> -Wno-unknown-warning-option \
> -Wall -v \
> $(LINUXINCLUDE) $(LIBBPF) \
> $(EXTRA_FLAGS) -c $< -o - | $(LLC) -march=bpf -filetype obj -o $
>
>
> Unfortunately, I keep running into what seems to be asm errors. I've tried reorganizing the list of include statements, taking out "-target bpf", not including some files, including other files, etc etc.
> This stackoverflow post suggests that it's a kconfig.h error, but I seem to be including the file just fine (https://stackoverflow.com/questions/56975861/error-compiling-ebpf-c-code-out-of-kernel-tree/56990939#56990939).
> I'm not really sure where to go from here with building BPF programs and including files that have the kernel datatypes. Maybe I'm missing something that's obvious that I'm just ignorant of?

I'd start with actually specifying what compilation errors you run
into. Also check out
https://github.com/iovisor/bcc/blob/master/libbpf-tools/Makefile to
see how BPF programs can be compiled properly outside of kernel tree.
Though that one pretty much assumes vmlinux.h, which simplifies a
bunch of compilation issues, probably.

>
>
>
> As additional information, and regarding kernel persistence, I am working on a monitoring project that uses BPF programs to continuously monitor the system without the bulky dependencies that BCC includes. I'm concurrently working on a BTF/CO-RE solution but I'm emphasizing a non-CO-RE approach at the moment. I can load and run BPF programs but upon termination of my userspace loader the BPF programs themselves also terminate.
>
>
>
> I would like to have the BPF program persist in the kernel even after the user space loader has completed its execution. I read in various documentation and in a 2015 LWN article that persistent BPF programs can be created by pinning programs and maps to the BPF vfs so as to keep the fds open. I have attempted pinning the entire BPF object, various programs and various maps, and no matter what I've tried the kernel BPF program terminates when the userspace process terminates. Using bpftool I have verified that the BPF files are pinned to the location and that BPF programs themselves all work. I know that persistent BPF programs are a part of projects like XDP and tc. Is there a way to do this for a generic BPF loader without having to implement customized kernel functions?  Below I have included a simplified version of my code. In which I outline the basic steps I take to load the compiled bpf programs and attempt to make persistent instances of them.

Right, pinning map or program doesn't ensure that program is still
attached to whatever BPF hook you attached to it. As you mentioned,
XDP, tc, cgroup-bpf programs are persistent. We are actually moving
towards the model of auto-detachment for those as well. See recent
activity around bpf_link. The solution with bpf_link to make such
attachments persistent is through pinning **link** itself, not program
or map. bpf_link is relatively recent addition, so on older kernels
you'd have to make sure you still have some process around that would
keep BPF attachment FD around.


>
>
>
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> #include <stdlib.h>
>
> #include <string.h>
>
> #include <errno.h>
>
> #include <getopt.h>
>
> #include <dirent.h>
>
> #include <sys/stat.h>
>
> #include <unistd.h>
>
> #include <assert.h>
>
> #include <linux/version.h>
>
>
>
> #include "libbpf.h"
>
> #include "bpf.h"
>
> #include "loader_helpers.h"
>
>
>
> #include <stdbool.h>
>
> #include <fcntl.h>
>
> #include <poll.h>
>
> #include <linux/perf_event.h>
>
> #include <assert.h>
>
> #include <sys/syscall.h>
>
> #include <sys/ioctl.h>
>
> #include <sys/mman.h>
>
> #include <time.h>
>
> #include <signal.h>
>
> #include <linux/ptrace.h>
>
>
>
> int main(int argc, char **argv) {
>
>
>
>     struct bpf_object *bpf_obj;
>
>     struct bpf_program *bpf_prog;
>
>     struct bpf_map *map;
>
>     char * license = "GPL";
>
>     __u32 kernelvers = LINUX_VERSION_CODE;
>
>     struct bpf_link * link;
>
>     int err;
>
>     int prog_fd;
>
>
>
>     bpf_obj = bpf_object__open("test_file.bpf.o");
>
>
>
>     bpf_prog = bpf_program__next(NULL, bpf_obj);
>
>
>
>     err = bpf_program__set_tracepoint(bpf_prog);
>
>     if(err) {
>
>         fprintf(stderr, "ERR couldn't setup program type\n");
>
>         return -1;
>
>     }
>
>     err = bpf_program__load(bpf_prog, license, kernelvers);
>
>     if(err) {
>
>         fprintf(stderr, "ERR couldn't setup program phase\n");
>
>         return -1;
>
>     }
>
>     prog_fd = bpf_program__fd(bpf_prog);
>
>
>
>     link = bpf_program__attach_tracepoint(bpf_prog, "syscalls", "sys_enter_openat");
>
>     if(!link) {
>
>         fprintf(stderr, "ERROR ATTACHING TRACEPOINT\n");
>
>         return -1;
>
>     }
>
>
>
>     assert(bpf_program__is_tracepoint(bpf_prog));
>
>
>
> pin:
>
>     err = bpf_program__pin(bpf_prog, "/sys/fs/bpf/tpprogram");
>
>     if(err) {
>
>         if(err == -17) {
>
>             printf("Program exists...trying to unpin and retry!\n");
>
>             err = bpf_program__unpin(bpf_prog, "/sys/fs/bpf/tpprogram");
>
>             if(!err) {
>
>                 goto pin;
>
>            }
>
>             printf("The pining already exists but it couldn't be removed...\n");
>
>             return -1;
>
>         }
>
>         printf("We couldn't pin...%d\n", err);
>
>         return -1;
>
>     }
>
>
>
>     printf("Program pinned and working...\n");
>
>
>
>     return 0;
>
> }
>
>
>
>
> Thanks for having a look and I hope these issues can be cleared up. Seems like building is the last major hurdle I have to get rolling with better engineering solutions than manually including structs in my files.
> Hope everyone stays well!


Hope above helped. Please cc bpf@... (and ideally send
plain-text emails, kernel mailing lists don't accept HTML emails).

>