linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] bpf: allow bpf programs to tail-call other bpf programs

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 21 May 2015 09:43:05 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
Cc:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
	Michael Holzheu <holzheu@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Zi Shen Lim <zlim.lnx@...il.com>,
	Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] bpf: allow bpf programs to tail-call other
 bpf programs

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com> wrote:
> On 5/21/15 9:20 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>>
>> What I mean is: why do we need the interface to be "look up this index
>> in an array and just to what it references" as a single atomic
>> instruction?  Can't we break it down into first "look up this index in
>> an array" and then "do this tail call"?
>
>
> I've actually considered to do this split and do first part as map lookup
> and 2nd as 'tail call to this ptr' insn, but it turned out to be
> painful: verifier gets more complicated, ctx pointer needs to kept
> somewhere, JITs need to special case two things instead of one.
> Also I couldn't see a use case for exposing program pointer to the
> program itself. I've explored this path only because it felt more
> traditional 'goto *ptr' like, but adding new PTR_TO_PROG type to
> verifier looked wasteful.

At some point, I think that it would be worth extending the verifier
to support more general non-integral scalar types. "Pointer to
tail-call target" would be just one of them.  "Pointer to skb" might
be nice as a real first-class scalar type that lives in a register as
opposed to just being magic typed context.

We'd still need some way to stick fds into a map, but that's not
really the verifier's problem.

--Andy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/