Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 3 Jul 2018 15:23:31 -0700 | From | Jakub Kicinski <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/3] bpf: btf: add btf print functionality |
| |
On Tue, 3 Jul 2018 22:46:00 +0100, Okash Khawaja wrote: > On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 10:06:59PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 11:39:15 -0700, Okash Khawaja wrote: > > > +#define BITS_PER_BYTE_MASK (BITS_PER_BYTE - 1) > > > +#define BITS_PER_BYTE_MASKED(bits) ((bits) & BITS_PER_BYTE_MASK) > > > > Perhaps it's just me but BIT_OFFSET or BIT_COUNT as a name of this macro > > would make it more obvious to parse in the code below. > I don't mind either. However these macro names are also used inside > kernel for same purpose. For sake of consistency, I'd recommend we keep > them :)
Ugh, okay :)
> > > + } print_num; > > > + > > > + total_bits_offset = bit_offset + BTF_INT_OFFSET(int_type); > > > + data += BITS_ROUNDDOWN_BYTES(total_bits_offset); > > > + bit_offset = BITS_PER_BYTE_MASKED(total_bits_offset); > > > + bits_to_copy = bits + bit_offset; > > > + bytes_to_copy = BITS_ROUNDUP_BYTES(bits_to_copy); > > > + > > > + print_num.u64_num = 0; > > > + memcpy(&print_num.u64_num, data, bytes_to_copy); > > > > This scheme is unlikely to work on big endian machines... > Can you give an example how?
On BE:
Input: [0x01, 0x82] Bit length: 15 Bytes to copy: 2 bit_offset: 0 upper_bits: 7
print_num.u64_num = 0; # [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
memcpy(&print_num.u64_num, data, bytes_to_copy); # [0x01, 0x82, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
mask = (1 << upper_bits) - 1; # mask = 0x7f
print_num.u8_nums[bytes_to_copy - 1] &= mask; # [0x01, 0x02, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
printf("0x%llx", print_num.u64_num); # 0x0102000000000000 AKA 72620543991349248 # expected: # 0x0102 AKA 258
Am I missing something?
> > > + upper_bits = BITS_PER_BYTE_MASKED(bits_to_copy); > > > + if (upper_bits) { > > > + uint8_t mask = (1 << upper_bits) - 1; > > > + > > > + print_num.u8_nums[bytes_to_copy - 1] &= mask; > > > + } > > > + > > > + print_num.u64_num >>= bit_offset; > > > + > > > + if (is_plain_text) > > > + jsonw_printf(jw, "0x%llx", print_num.u64_num); > > > + else > > > + jsonw_printf(jw, "%llu", print_num.u64_num); > > > +} > > > + > > > +static int btf_dumper_int(const struct btf_type *t, uint8_t bit_offset, > > > + const void *data, json_writer_t *jw, > > > + bool is_plain_text) > > > +{ > > > + uint32_t *int_type = (uint32_t *)(t + 1); > > > + uint32_t bits = BTF_INT_BITS(*int_type); > > > + int ret = 0; > > > + > > > + /* if this is bit field */ > > > + if (bit_offset || BTF_INT_OFFSET(*int_type) || > > > + BITS_PER_BYTE_MASKED(bits)) { > > > + btf_dumper_int_bits(*int_type, bit_offset, data, jw, > > > + is_plain_text); > > > + return ret; > > > + } > > > + > > > + switch (BTF_INT_ENCODING(*int_type)) { > > > + case 0: > > > + if (BTF_INT_BITS(*int_type) == 64) > > > + jsonw_printf(jw, "%lu", *((uint64_t *)data)); > > > + else if (BTF_INT_BITS(*int_type) == 32) > > > + jsonw_printf(jw, "%u", *((uint32_t *)data)); > > > + else if (BTF_INT_BITS(*int_type) == 16) > > > + jsonw_printf(jw, "%hu", *((uint16_t *)data)); > > > + else if (BTF_INT_BITS(*int_type) == 8) > > > + jsonw_printf(jw, "%hhu", *((uint8_t *)data)); > > > + else > > > + btf_dumper_int_bits(*int_type, bit_offset, data, jw, > > > + is_plain_text); > > > + break; > > > + case BTF_INT_SIGNED: > > > + if (BTF_INT_BITS(*int_type) == 64) > > > + jsonw_printf(jw, "%ld", *((int64_t *)data)); > > > + else if (BTF_INT_BITS(*int_type) == 32) > > > + jsonw_printf(jw, "%d", *((int32_t *)data)); > > > + else if (BTF_INT_BITS(*int_type) == 16) > > > > Please drop the double space. Both for 16 where it makes no sense and > > for 8 where it's marginally useful but not really. > > > > > + jsonw_printf(jw, "%hd", *((int16_t *)data)); > > > + else if (BTF_INT_BITS(*int_type) == 8) > > > + jsonw_printf(jw, "%hhd", *((int8_t *)data)); > > > + else > > > + btf_dumper_int_bits(*int_type, bit_offset, data, jw, > > > + is_plain_text); > > > + break; > > > + case BTF_INT_CHAR: > > > + if (*((char *)data) == '\0') > > > + jsonw_null(jw); > > > > Mm.. I don't think 0 char is equivalent to null. > Yes, thanks. Will fix. > > > > > > + else if (isprint(*((char *)data))) > > > + jsonw_printf(jw, "\"%c\"", *((char *)data)); > > > > This looks very suspicious. So if I see a "6" for a char field it's > > either a 6 ('\u0006') or a 54 ('6')... > It will always be 54. May be I missed your point. Could you explain why > it would be other than 54?
Ah, I think I missed that %c is in quotes...
> > > + else > > > + if (is_plain_text) > > > + jsonw_printf(jw, "%hhx", *((char *)data));
This seems to be missing a "0x" prefix?
> > > + else > > > + jsonw_printf(jw, "%hhd", *((char *)data)); > > > > ... I think you need to always print a string, and express it as > > \u00%02hhx for non-printable. > Okay that makes sense
Yeah, IDK, char can be used as a byte as well as a string. In eBPF it may actually be more likely to just be used as a raw byte buffer... Either way I think it may be nice to keep it consistent, at least for the JSON output could we do either always ints or always characters?
| |