[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1466507748.18876.3.camel@ellerman.id.au>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:15:48 +1000
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To: "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Matt Evans <matt@...abs.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
Denis Kirjanov <kda@...ux-powerpc.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ppc: Fix BPF JIT for ABIv2
On Tue, 2016-06-21 at 14:28 +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
> On 2016/06/20 03:56PM, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 11:19:14PM +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
> > > On 2016/06/17 10:00AM, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi, Michael and Naveen.
> > > >
> > > > I noticed independently that there is a problem with BPF JIT and ABIv2, and
> > > > worked out the patch below before I noticed Naveen's patchset and the latest
> > > > changes in ppc tree for a better way to check for ABI versions.
> > > >
> > > > However, since the issue described below affect mainline and stable kernels,
> > > > would you consider applying it before merging your two patchsets, so that we can
> > > > more easily backport the fix?
> > >
> > > Hi Cascardo,
> > > Given that this has been broken on ABIv2 since forever, I didn't bother
> > > fixing it. But, I can see why this would be a good thing to have for
> > > -stable and existing distros. However, while your patch below may fix
> > > the crash you're seeing on ppc64le, it is not sufficient -- you'll need
> > > changes in bpf_jit_asm.S as well.
> >
> > Hi, Naveen.
> >
> > Any tips on how to exercise possible issues there? Or what changes you think
> > would be sufficient?
>
> The calling convention is different with ABIv2 and so we'll need changes
> in bpf_slow_path_common() and sk_negative_common().
How big would those changes be? Do we know?
How come no one reported this was broken previously? This is the first I've
heard of it being broken.
> However, rather than enabling classic JIT for ppc64le, are we better off
> just disabling it?
>
> --- a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
> @@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ config PPC
> select IRQ_FORCED_THREADING
> select HAVE_RCU_TABLE_FREE if SMP
> select HAVE_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINTS
> - select HAVE_CBPF_JIT
> + select HAVE_CBPF_JIT if CPU_BIG_ENDIAN
> select HAVE_ARCH_JUMP_LABEL
> select ARCH_HAVE_NMI_SAFE_CMPXCHG
> select ARCH_HAS_GCOV_PROFILE_ALL
>
>
> Michael,
> Let me know your thoughts on whether you intend to take this patch or
> Cascardo's patch for -stable before the eBPF patches. I can redo my
> patches accordingly.
This patch sounds like the best option at the moment for something we can
backport. Unless the changes to fix it are minimal.
cheers
Powered by blists - more mailing lists