linux-kernel - Re: [tip:x86/urgent] bpf: Fix ORC unwinding in non-JIT BPF code

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: <20190709191751.24eq5zx2c7hoqot6@treble>
Date:   Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:17:51 -0500
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Kairui Song <kasong@...hat.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/urgent] bpf: Fix ORC unwinding in non-JIT BPF code

On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 11:02:40AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 10:48 AM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 04:16:25PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > total time is hard to compare.
> > > Could you compare few tests?
> > > like two that are called "tcpdump *"
> > >
> > > I think small regression is ok.
> > > Folks that care about performance should be using JIT.
> >
> > I did each test 20 times and computed the averages:
> >
> > "tcpdump port 22":
> >  default:       0.00743175s
> >  -fno-gcse:     0.00709920s (~4.5% speedup)
> >
> > "tcpdump complex":
> >  default:       0.00876715s
> >  -fno-gcse:     0.00854895s (~2.5% speedup)
> >
> > So there does seem to be a small performance gain by disabling this
> > optimization.
> 
> great. thanks for checking.
> 
> > We could change it for the whole file, by adjusting CFLAGS_core.o in the
> > BPF makefile, or we could change it for the function only with something
> > like the below patch.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h b/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h
> > index e8579412ad21..d7ee4c6bad48 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h
> > @@ -170,3 +170,5 @@
> >  #else
> >  #define __diag_GCC_8(s)
> >  #endif
> > +
> > +#define __no_fgcse __attribute__((optimize("-fno-gcse")))
> > diff --git a/include/linux/compiler_types.h b/include/linux/compiler_types.h
> > index 095d55c3834d..599c27b56c29 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/compiler_types.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/compiler_types.h
> > @@ -189,6 +189,10 @@ struct ftrace_likely_data {
> >  #define asm_volatile_goto(x...) asm goto(x)
> >  #endif
> >
> > +#ifndef __no_fgcse
> > +# define __no_fgcse
> > +#endif
> > +
> >  /* Are two types/vars the same type (ignoring qualifiers)? */
> >  #define __same_type(a, b) __builtin_types_compatible_p(typeof(a), typeof(b))
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c
> > index 7e98f36a14e2..8191a7db2777 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c
> > @@ -1295,7 +1295,7 @@ bool bpf_opcode_in_insntable(u8 code)
> >   *
> >   * Decode and execute eBPF instructions.
> >   */
> > -static u64 ___bpf_prog_run(u64 *regs, const struct bpf_insn *insn, u64 *stack)
> > +static u64 __no_fgcse ___bpf_prog_run(u64 *regs, const struct bpf_insn *insn, u64 *stack)
> 
> I prefer per-function flag.
> If you want to route it via tip:
> Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...rnel.org>
> 
> or Daniel can take it into bpf tree while I'm traveling.

Thanks!  I''ll probably send it through the tip tree, along with an
objtool fix for the other optimization.

-- 
Josh