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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <59288093.8080108@iogearbox.net>
Date:   Fri, 26 May 2017 21:22:59 +0200
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>,
        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 09:20 PM, David Daney wrote:
> 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.

Okay, sounds good!