linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 1/4] riscv, bpf: move common riscv JIT code to header

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:   Wed, 4 Mar 2020 06:44:24 +0100
From:   Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...il.com>
To:     Luke Nelson <lukenels@...washington.edu>
Cc:     bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Luke Nelson <luke.r.nels@...il.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, Xi Wang <xi.wang@...il.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 1/4] riscv, bpf: move common riscv JIT code to header

On Wed, 4 Mar 2020 at 03:31, Luke Nelson <lukenels@...washington.edu> wrote:
>
> Hi Björn,
>
> Thanks for the comments! Inlined responses below:
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 11:50 PM Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> > > +/*
> > > + * Common functionality for RV32 and RV64 BPF JIT compilers
> > > + *
> > > + * Copyright (c) 2019 Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...il.com>
> > > + * Copyright (c) 2020 Luke Nelson <luke.r.nels@...il.com>
> > > + * Copyright (c) 2020 Xi Wang <xi.wang@...il.com>
> >
> > I'm no lawyer, so this is more of a question; You've pulled out code
> > into a header, and renamed two functions. Does that warrant copyright
> > line additions? Should my line be removed?
>
> This header also includes new code for emitting instructions required
> for the RV32 JIT (e.g., sltu) and some additional pseudoinstructions
> (e.g., bgtu and similar). I'm also no lawyer, so I don't know either
> if this rises to the level of adding copyright lines. I'm happy to
> do the following in v5 if it looks better:
>
> + * Copyright (c) 2019 Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...il.com>
> + *
> + * Modified by ...
>

Ah, my mistake! Feel free to keep the Copyright. I was honestly just
curious what the correct way (if any) was. So; Keep your copyright!
Sorry for the noise!

> > > +#if __riscv_xlen == 64
> >
> > Please remove this. If the inlined functions are not used, they're not
> > part of the binary. This adds complexity to the code, and without it
> > we can catch build errors early on!
>
> I agree in general we should avoid #if. The reason for using it
> here is to cause build errors if the RV32 JIT ever tries to emit
> an RV64-only instruction by mistake. Otherwise, what is now a build
> error would be delayed to an illegal instruction trap when the JITed
> code is executed, which is much harder to find and diagnose.
>
> We could use separate files, bpf_jit_32.h and bpf_jit_64.h (the
> latter will include the former), if we want to avoid #if. Though
> this adds another form of complexity.
>
> So the options here are 1) using no #if, with the risk of hiding
> subtle bugs in the RV32 JIT; 2) using #if as is; and 3) using
> separate headers. What do you think?
>

Ok, that is a valid concern. We could go the route of compile-time checking:

if (__riscv_xlen != 64)
    bad_usage();

That's overkill in this case. Keep the #if.


Cheers,
Björn


> Thanks!
>
> Luke