selftests/bpf: Attempt to build BPF programs with -Wsign-compare

GCC's -Wall includes -Wsign-compare while clang does not.
Since BPF programs are built with clang we need to add this flag explicitly
to catch problematic comparisons like:

int i = -1;
unsigned int j = 1;
if (i < j) // this is false.

long i = -1;
unsigned int j = 1;
if (i < j) // this is true.

C standard for reference:

- If either operand is unsigned long the other shall be converted to unsigned long.

- Otherwise, if one operand is a long int and the other unsigned int, then if a
long int can represent all the values of an unsigned int, the unsigned int
shall be converted to a long int; otherwise both operands shall be converted to
unsigned long int.

- Otherwise, if either operand is long, the other shall be converted to long.

- Otherwise, if either operand is unsigned, the other shall be converted to unsigned.

Unfortunately clang's -Wsign-compare is very noisy.
It complains about (s32)a == (u32)b which is safe and doen't have surprising behavior.

This patch fixes some of the issues. It needs a follow up to fix the rest.

Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20231226191148.48536-2-alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com

selftests/bpf: fix lots of silly mistakes pointed out by compiler

Once we enable -Wall for BPF sources, compiler will complain about lots
of unused variables, variables that are set but never read, etc.

Fix all these issues first before enabling -Wall in Makefile.

Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230309054015.4068562-4-andrii@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>

selftests/bpf: Add CO-RE relos and SEC("?...") to linked_funcs selftests

Enhance linked_funcs selftest with two tricky features that might not
obviously work correctly together. We add CO-RE relocations to entry BPF
programs and mark those programs as non-autoloadable with SEC("?...")
annotation. This makes sure that libbpf itself handles .BTF.ext CO-RE
relocation data matching correctly for SEC("?...") programs, as well as
ensures that BPF static linker handles this correctly (this was the case
before, no changes are necessary, but it wasn't explicitly tested).

Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220426004511.2691730-6-andrii@kernel.org

selftests/bpf: Add CO-RE relos into linked_funcs selftests

Add CO-RE relocations into __weak subprogs for multi-file linked_funcs
selftest to make sure libbpf handles such combination well.

Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220408181425.2287230-4-andrii@kernel.org

selftests/bpf: Add function linking selftest

Add selftest validating various aspects of statically linking functions:
- no conflicts and correct resolution for name-conflicting static funcs;
- correct resolution of extern functions;
- correct handling of weak functions, both resolution itself and libbpf's
handling of unused weak function that "lost" (it leaves gaps in code with
no ELF symbols);
- correct handling of hidden visibility to turn global function into
"static" for the purpose of BPF verification.

Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210423181348.1801389-16-andrii@kernel.org