linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] x86/cpufeature: guard asm_volatile_goto usage with NO_BPF

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]
Message-ID: <8bf96497-2fc3-8d11-1c40-cb027eae44a6@fb.com>
Date:   Fri, 27 Apr 2018 09:34:05 -0700
From:   Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:     <mingo@...nel.org>, <ast@...com>, <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <x86@...nel.org>,
        <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/cpufeature: guard asm_volatile_goto usage with
 NO_BPF_WORKAROUND

Hi, Peter,

Just wanted to ping again so that you did not miss the email below.
Please let me know your opinion.

Thanks!

Yonghong


On 4/23/18 9:50 AM, Yonghong Song wrote:
> Hi, Peter,
> 
> Please see comments below.
> 
> On 4/23/18 3:52 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 11:06:03AM -0700, Yonghong Song wrote:
>>> On 4/20/18 1:19 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>
>>>> Hurm, so adding __BPF__ for BPF compiles isn't an option? It seems 
>>>> to me
>>>> having a CPP flag to identify BPF compile context might be useful in
>>>> general.
>>>
>>> With "clang -target bpf", we already have __BPF__ defined.
>>> For tracing, esp. ptrace.h is included, "clang -target <native_arch>" 
>>> where
>>> "-target <native_arch>" can be omitted, is typically used.
>>
>>> The reason is the native architecture header files typically
>>> include a lot of various asm related stuff where "-target bpf" cannot
>>> really handle. We relay on native clang to flush out all these
>>> asm constructs and only bpf program needed stuff survives
>>> reach to backend compiler.
>>
>> So because 'clang -target bpf' is 'broken', you do a work-around using
> 
> 'clang -target bpf' is 'broken' in this case because the x86 arch has
> a lot of inline asm's in the header file where bpf target cannot handle.
> For most networking related bpf programs where `asm` is rarely involved,
> `clang -target bpf` works fine most of time.
> 
>> 'clang -target <native_arch>'. But because that doesn't set __BPF__ you
> 
> `clang -target <native_arch>` should work, regardless of whether __BPF__
> macro is setup or not. The reason it doesn't work now is due to its 
> lacking asm-goto support. So to use `clang -target <native_arch>` is not
> really a workaround for `target bpf`. It by itself should work.
> 
>> want to add NO_BPF_WORKAROUND to the kernel instead of adding __BPF__ to
>> your build rules to better mimick -target bpf, which you should be
>> using.
>>
>> How is that sane? Why not use 'clang -target <native_arch> -D__BPF__'
> 
> To workaround the asm-goto issue, the suggested macro __BPF__ can be 
> added to user space and kernel. But note that `clang -target 
> <native_arch>` will not define the macro __BPF__, so this requires
> user space change.
> 
> Also, to make sure people understand that this is a WORKAROUND for
> asm-goto issue and is not a lasting thing we want to support. I have
> the following change for cpufeature.h:
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h 
> b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> index b27da9602a6d..c832118defa1 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> @@ -140,6 +140,7 @@ extern void clear_cpu_cap(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c, 
> unsigned int bit);
> 
>   #define setup_force_cpu_bug(bit) setup_force_cpu_cap(bit)
> 
> +#ifndef __BPF_WORKAROUND__
>   /*
>    * Static testing of CPU features.  Used the same as boot_cpu_has().
>    * These will statically patch the target code for additional
> @@ -195,6 +196,9 @@ static __always_inline __pure bool 
> _static_cpu_has(u16 bit)
>                  boot_cpu_has(bit) :                             \
>                  _static_cpu_has(bit)                            \
>   )
> +#else
> +#define static_cpu_has(bit)            boot_cpu_has(bit)
> +#endif
> 
>   #define cpu_has_bug(c, bit)            cpu_has(c, (bit))
>   #define set_cpu_bug(c, bit)            set_cpu_cap(c, (bit))
> diff --git a/samples/bpf/Makefile b/samples/bpf/Makefile
> index 4d6a6edd4bf6..b229e5090e4a 100644
> 
> As mentioned above, user space needs to add this new macro definition.
> Specifically for kernel/samples/bpf:
> diff --git a/samples/bpf/Makefile b/samples/bpf/Makefile
> index 4d6a6edd4bf6..b229e5090e4a 100644
> --- a/samples/bpf/Makefile
> +++ b/samples/bpf/Makefile
> @@ -255,7 +255,7 @@ $(obj)/tracex5_kern.o: $(obj)/syscall_nrs.h
>   $(obj)/%.o: $(src)/%.c
>          $(CLANG) $(NOSTDINC_FLAGS) $(LINUXINCLUDE) $(EXTRA_CFLAGS) 
> -I$(obj) \
>                  -I$(srctree)/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/ \
> -               -D__KERNEL__ -Wno-unused-value -Wno-pointer-sign \
> +               -D__KERNEL__ -D__BPF_WORKAROUND__ -Wno-unused-value 
> -Wno-pointer-sign \
>                  -D__TARGET_ARCH_$(ARCH) 
> -Wno-compare-distinct-pointer-types \
>                  -Wno-gnu-variable-sized-type-not-at-end \
>                  -Wno-address-of-packed-member -Wno-tautological-compare \
> 
> Please let me know whether this approach is okay to you or not,
> whether the name __BPF_WORKAROUND__ is better than __BPF__ or not, or we 
> could use the earlier approach which does not require user space change.
> 
> Thanks!