linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] MIPS: Add support for eBPF JIT.

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:   Fri, 26 May 2017 12:20:32 -0700
From:   David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
        ralf@...ux-mips.org
Cc:     Markos Chandras <markos.chandras@...tec.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] MIPS: Add support for eBPF JIT.

On 05/26/2017 12:09 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 05/26/2017 05:39 PM, David Daney wrote:
>> On 05/26/2017 08:14 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>>> On 05/26/2017 02:38 AM, David Daney wrote:
>>>> Since the eBPF machine has 64-bit registers, we only support this in
>>>> 64-bit kernels.  As of the writing of this commit log test-bpf is 
>>>> showing:
>>>>
>>>>    test_bpf: Summary: 316 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [308/308 JIT'ed]
>>>>
>>>> All current test cases are successfully compiled.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>
>>>
>>> Awesome work!
>>>
>>> Did you also manage to run tools/testing/selftests/bpf/ fine with
>>> the JIT enabled?
>>
>> I haven't done that yet, I will before the next revision.
>>
>>> [...]
>>>> +struct bpf_prog *bpf_int_jit_compile(struct bpf_prog *prog)
>>>> +{
>>>> +    struct jit_ctx ctx;
>>>> +    unsigned int alloc_size;
>>>> +
>>>> +    /* Only 64-bit kernel supports eBPF */
>>>> +    if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_64BIT) || !bpf_jit_enable)
>>>
>>> Isn't this already reflected by the following?
>>>
>>>    select HAVE_EBPF_JIT if (64BIT && !CPU_MICROMIPS)
>>
>> Not exactly.  The eBPF JIT is in the same file as the classic-BPF JIT, 
>> so when HAVE_EBPF_JIT is false this will indeed never be called.  But 
>> the kernel would otherwise contain all the JIT code.
>>
>> By putting in !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_64BIT) we allow gcc to eliminate all 
>> the dead code when compiling the JITs.
> 
> Side-effect would still be that for cBPF you go through the cBPF
> JIT instead of letting the kernel convert all cBPF to eBPF and
> later on go through your eBPF JIT. If you still prefer to have
> everything in one single file and let gcc eliminate dead code
> then you can just do single line change ...
> 
> void bpf_jit_compile(struct bpf_prog *fp)
> {
>          struct jit_ctx ctx;
>          unsigned int alloc_size, tmp_idx;
> 
>          if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_EBPF_JIT) || !bpf_jit_enable)
>                  return;

Yes.  In fact I did that for testing.

The cBPF JIT generates smaller code for:

test_bpf: #274 BPF_MAXINSNS: ld_abs+get_processor_id jited:1 44128 PASS

When we attempt to use the eBPF JIT for this, some of the MIPS branch 
instructions cannot reach their targets (+- 32K instructions).  I didn't 
feel like fixing the code generation quite yet to handle branches that 
span more than 32K instructions, so I left the cBPF in place so I could 
claim that all of the test cases were JITed :-)

For the next revision of the patch I will revisit this.

David.

>          [...]
> }
> 
> ... and bpf_prog_ebpf_jited() et al wouldn't need to be changed
> in the core, which are used in kallsyms, and kernel will then
> also be able to automatically JIT all of seccomp-BPF and the
> missing cBPF extensions we have through the eBPF JIT w/o extra
> work.