On 6/8/21 8:45 PM, Hyeonggon Yoo wrote:
> > mm.. when the size passed to bpf_map_kmalloc_node is not
constant,
> > (__builtin_constant_p(size) && size <= KMALLOC_MAX_CACHE_SIZE) is
false.
> > then __builtin_constant_p(!!false) is true. So it calls kmalloc_index.
> >
> > what change should be made?
> > just checking CONFIG_PROFILE_ALL_BRANCHES to kmalloc_index's if condition
> > doesn't make sense, because kmalloc_node is not working as expected.
>
> If I understood my colleagues right, the problem is that, while kmalloc_index()
> seems to contains a number of *independent* "if (size <= X) conditions in a
> sequence, the machinery of CONFIG_PROFILE_ALL_BRANCHES turns it to a deeply
> nested if-then-else { if-then-else { if-then-else {...}}} thing (in fact using
> the ternary operators, not if-then-else).
> At some point of the deep nesting gcc
> "forgets" that __builtin_constant_p() is true and starts behaving as if it
wasn't.
>
> Without CONFIG_PROFILE_ALL_BRANCHES it's able to keep track of it fine.
>
I think you are talking about some if statements in kmalloc_index.
How do you know gcc "forgets" __builtin_constant_p() is true?
can it be debugged using cvise? (not offending, just because
I don't know about cvise yet).
Also, as I understand right, kmalloc_index doesn't have information
about the value of __builtin_constant_p(size). the caller of
kmalloc_index (kmalloc_node here) has that information.
If I understand right, what CONFIG_PROFILE_ALL_BRANCHES does is below.
replacing if(cond) { body } -> if (
__builtin_constant_p(cond) ?
then (cond)
else (cond, record something)
) { body }
I think it does not make deep nested statements.
OK, might have been a misunderstanding of cvise output.
So I don't know why exactly there are false positives with
CONFIG_PROFILE_ALL_BRANCHES.
the below is some part of preprocessor output.
CONFIG_PROFILE_ALL_BRANCHES makes some ugly ternary operators,
but there is no deep-nested if-then-else statements.
if ( (__builtin_constant_p(!!(size <= 8)) ? (!!(size <= 8)) : ({ static struct
ftrace_branch_data __attribute__((__aligned__(4)))
__attribute__((__section__("_ftrace_branch"))) __if_trace = { .func = __func__,
.file = "include/linux/slab.h", .line = 392, }; (!!(size <= 8)) ?
(__if_trace.miss_hit[1]++,1) : (__if_trace.miss_hit[0]++,0); })) ) return 3;
if ( (__builtin_constant_p(!!(size <= 16)) ? (!!(size <= 16)) : ({ static struct
ftrace_branch_data __attribute__((__aligned__(4)))
__attribute__((__section__("_ftrace_branch"))) __if_trace = { .func = __func__,
.file = "include/linux/slab.h", .line = 393, }; (!!(size <= 16)) ?
(__if_trace.miss_hit[1]++,1) : (__if_trace.miss_hit[0]++,0); })) ) return 4;
if ( (__builtin_constant_p(!!(size <= 32)) ? (!!(size <= 32)) : ({ static struct
ftrace_branch_data __attribute__((__aligned__(4)))
__attribute__((__section__("_ftrace_branch"))) __if_trace = { .func = __func__,
.file = "include/linux/slab.h", .line = 394, }; (!!(size <= 32)) ?
(__if_trace.miss_hit[1]++,1) : (__if_trace.miss_hit[0]++,0); })) ) return 5;
.... and some if statements ...
And I think, the problem is on kmalloc_node, not on kmalloc_index.
the original code of kmalloc_node is below:
static __always_inline void *kmalloc_node(size_t size, gfp_t flags, int node)
{
#ifndef CONFIG_SLOB
if (__builtin_constant_p(size) &&
size <= KMALLOC_MAX_CACHE_SIZE) {
unsigned int i = kmalloc_index(size);
and which is changed to below: (by CONFIG_PROFILE_ALL_BRANCHES)
static __always_inline void *kmalloc_node(size_t size, gfp_t flags, int node)
{
if ( (
__builtin_constant_p(
!!(__builtin_constant_p(size) && size <= (1UL << ((11 + 12 - 1) <=
25 ? (11 + 12 - 1) : 25)))
)
? (!!(__builtin_constant_p(size) && size <= (1UL << ((11 + 12 - 1)
<= 25 ? (11 + 12 - 1) : 25))))
: ({ static struct ftrace_branch_data __attribute__((__aligned__(4)))
__attribute__((__section__("_ftrace_branch"))) __if_trace = { .func = __func__,
.file = "include/linux/slab.h", .line = 601, }; (!!(__builtin_constant_p(size)
&& size <= (1UL << ((11 + 12 - 1) <= 25 ? (11 + 12 - 1) : 25)))) ?
(__if_trace.miss_hit[1]++,1) : (__if_trace.miss_hit[0]++,0); })) )
{
unsigned int i = __kmalloc_index(size, true);
they are so ugly but the point is:
> > It seems that gcc evaluates
> >
> > __builtin_constant_p(
> > !!(builtin_constant_p(size)
> > && size <= KMALLOC_MAX_CACHE_SIZE)
> > )
> > as true.
> >
> > mm.. when the size passed to bpf_map_kmalloc_node is not constant,
> > (__builtin_constant_p(size) && size <= KMALLOC_MAX_CACHE_SIZE) is
false.
> > then __builtin_constant_p(!!false) is true. So it calls kmalloc_index.
> >
> > what change should be made?
> > just checking CONFIG_PROFILE_ALL_BRANCHES to kmalloc_index's if condition
> > doesn't make sense, because kmalloc_node is not working as expected.
some evidence to add:
there are 4 calls of bpf_map_kmalloc_node.
if you comment out two calls of bpf_map_kmalloc_node with non-constant
(in line 168, 508), it doesn't make an error. So I thought
it was problem when non-constant size was passed.
And if "kmalloc_index makes problem with non-constant size" is
true, then it is caller's fault because it is not allowed (except
in __kmalloc_index)
kmalloc_node shouldn't call kmalloc_index if the size was not
constant.
Yes. You could perhaps exclude CONFIG_PROFILE_ALL_BRANCHES for now, and fill
official gcc bugzilla with the preprocessed file.
Bonus points if you can use cvise in a way that reduces the testcase but does
not remove any of the important parts. All we could get were degenerate cases
like this one
https://paste.opensuse.org/9320186
> > void *kmalloc_node(size_t size, gfp_t flags, int node){
> >
> > if ( (__builtin_constant_p(
> > !!(__builtin_constant_p(size)
> > && size <= (1UL << ((11 + 12 - 1) <= 25 ? (11 + 12 -
1) : 25))))
> > ? (!!(__builtin_constant_p(size) && size <= (1UL <<
((11 + 12 - 1) <= 25 ? (11 + 12 - 1) : 25))))
> > if ( (__builtin_constant_p(!!((0 || 110000 >= 110000) &&
size_is_constant)) ? (!!((0 || 110000 >= 110000) && size_is_constant)) : ({
static struct ftrace_branch_data __attribute__((__aligned__(4)))
__attribute__((__section__("_ftrace_branch"))) __if_trace = { .func = __func__,
.file = "include/linux/slab.h", .line = 416, }; (!!((0 || 110000 >= 110000)
&& size_is_constant)) ? (__if_trace.miss_hit[1]++,1) :
(__if_trace.miss_hit[0]++,0); })) )
> > do {
> >
> >
> > extern void __compiletime_assert_131(void) ;
> > // here - compiletime_assert_131 does NOTHING
>
> It doesn't seem to do nothing? see below
>
> > if ( (__builtin_constant_p(!!(!(!(1))))
> > ? (!!(!(!(1))))
> > : ({ static struct ftrace_branch_data
__attribute__((__aligned__(4))) __attribute__((__section__("_ftrace_branch")))
__if_trace = { .func = __func__, .file = "include/linux/slab.h", .line = 417, };
(!!(!(!(1)))) ? (__if_trace.miss_hit[1]++,1) : (__if_trace.miss_hit[0]++,0); })) )
__compiletime_assert_131(); } while (0);
>
> The thing above seems to be exactly the "if (!(condition))
> prefix ## suffix(); } while (0)" as the definition you posted below.
>
> Anyway, you can verify that clang works by commenting out the highest size
> checks and passing a constant size that makes it reach the BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG() ?
>
I verified as below.
clang didn't make an error, gcc worked as expected.
then I can explain why there is no error with clang:
it just did nothing with BUILD_BUG_ON.
That might warrant a clang bug report too. We excluded clang 10 due to false
positives. If the BUILD_BUG_ON doesn't work at all in clang 11 we might have to
exclude clang completely.
hyeyoo@hyeyoo:~/바탕화면/linux-next$ git diff
diff --git a/include/linux/slab.h b/include/linux/slab.h
index 8d8dd8571261..f2f9a6a7e663 100644
--- a/include/linux/slab.h
+++ b/include/linux/slab.h
@@ -379,6 +379,9 @@ static __always_inline enum kmalloc_cache_type kmalloc_type(gfp_t
flags)
static __always_inline unsigned int __kmalloc_index(size_t size,
bool size_is_constant)
{
+
+ BUILD_BUG_ON(1);
+
if (!size)
return 0;
hyeyoo@hyeyoo:~/바탕화면/linux-next$ make mm/kfence/kfence_test.o CC=clang-11
CALL scripts/checksyscalls.sh
... some headers omitted ...
CC mm/kfence/kfence_test.o
In file included from <command-line>:
In function ‘__kmalloc_index’,
inlined from ‘kmalloc_cache_alignment’ at mm/kfence/kfence_test.c:200:50:
././include/linux/compiler_types.h:328:38: error: call to ‘__compiletime_assert_131’
declared with attribute error: BUILD_BUG_ON failed: 1
328 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__)
| ^
././include/linux/compiler_types.h:309:4: note: in definition of macro
‘__compiletime_assert’
309 | prefix ## suffix(); \
| ^~~~~~
././include/linux/compiler_types.h:328:2: note: in expansion of macro
‘_compiletime_assert’
328 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
./include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro ‘compiletime_assert’
39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
./include/linux/build_bug.h:50:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG’
50 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
./include/linux/slab.h:383:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘BUILD_BUG_ON’
383 | BUILD_BUG_ON(1);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
In function ‘__kmalloc_index’,
inlined from ‘test_alloc’ at mm/kfence/kfence_test.c:271:47:
././include/linux/compiler_types.h:328:38: error: call to ‘__compiletime_assert_131’
declared with attribute error: BUILD_BUG_ON failed: 1
328 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__)
| ^
././include/linux/compiler_types.h:309:4: note: in definition of macro
‘__compiletime_assert’
309 | prefix ## suffix(); \
| ^~~~~~
././include/linux/compiler_types.h:328:2: note: in expansion of macro
‘_compiletime_assert’
328 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
./include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro ‘compiletime_assert’
39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
./include/linux/build_bug.h:50:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG’
50 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
./include/linux/slab.h:383:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘BUILD_BUG_ON’
383 | BUILD_BUG_ON(1);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
make[2]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:272: mm/kfence/kfence_test.o] 오류 1
make[1]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:533: mm/kfence] 오류 2
make: *** [Makefile:1948: mm] 오류 2