linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 10/13] bpf: Add instructions for atomic[64]_[fetch

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: <20201129013420.yi7ehnseawm5hsb7@ast-mbp>
Date:   Sat, 28 Nov 2020 17:34:20 -0800
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
Cc:     Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
        Florent Revest <revest@...omium.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 10/13] bpf: Add instructions for
 atomic[64]_[fetch_]sub

On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 09:35:07PM -0800, Yonghong Song wrote:
> 
> 
> On 11/27/20 9:57 AM, Brendan Jackman wrote:
> > Including only interpreter and x86 JIT support.
> > 
> > x86 doesn't provide an atomic exchange-and-subtract instruction that
> > could be used for BPF_SUB | BPF_FETCH, however we can just emit a NEG
> > followed by an XADD to get the same effect.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com>
> > ---
> >   arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c  | 16 ++++++++++++++--
> >   include/linux/filter.h       | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> >   kernel/bpf/core.c            |  1 +
> >   kernel/bpf/disasm.c          | 16 ++++++++++++----
> >   kernel/bpf/verifier.c        |  2 ++
> >   tools/include/linux/filter.h | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> >   6 files changed, 69 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> > index 7431b2937157..a8a9fab13fcf 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> > @@ -823,6 +823,7 @@ static int emit_atomic(u8 **pprog, u8 atomic_op,
> >   	/* emit opcode */
> >   	switch (atomic_op) {
> > +	case BPF_SUB:
> >   	case BPF_ADD:
> >   		/* lock *(u32/u64*)(dst_reg + off) <op>= src_reg */
> >   		EMIT1(simple_alu_opcodes[atomic_op]);
> > @@ -1306,8 +1307,19 @@ st:			if (is_imm8(insn->off))
> >   		case BPF_STX | BPF_ATOMIC | BPF_W:
> >   		case BPF_STX | BPF_ATOMIC | BPF_DW:
> > -			err = emit_atomic(&prog, insn->imm, dst_reg, src_reg,
> > -					  insn->off, BPF_SIZE(insn->code));
> > +			if (insn->imm == (BPF_SUB | BPF_FETCH)) {
> > +				/*
> > +				 * x86 doesn't have an XSUB insn, so we negate
> > +				 * and XADD instead.
> > +				 */
> > +				emit_neg(&prog, src_reg, BPF_SIZE(insn->code) == BPF_DW);
> > +				err = emit_atomic(&prog, BPF_ADD | BPF_FETCH,
> > +						  dst_reg, src_reg, insn->off,
> > +						  BPF_SIZE(insn->code));
> > +			} else {
> > +				err = emit_atomic(&prog, insn->imm, dst_reg, src_reg,
> > +						  insn->off, BPF_SIZE(insn->code));
> > +			}
> >   			if (err)
> >   				return err;
> >   			break;
> > diff --git a/include/linux/filter.h b/include/linux/filter.h
> > index 6186280715ed..a20a3a536bf5 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/filter.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/filter.h
> > @@ -280,6 +280,26 @@ static inline bool insn_is_zext(const struct bpf_insn *insn)
> >   		.off   = OFF,					\
> >   		.imm   = BPF_ADD | BPF_FETCH })
> > +/* Atomic memory sub, *(uint *)(dst_reg + off16) -= src_reg */
> > +
> > +#define BPF_ATOMIC_SUB(SIZE, DST, SRC, OFF)			\
> > +	((struct bpf_insn) {					\
> > +		.code  = BPF_STX | BPF_SIZE(SIZE) | BPF_ATOMIC,	\
> > +		.dst_reg = DST,					\
> > +		.src_reg = SRC,					\
> > +		.off   = OFF,					\
> > +		.imm   = BPF_SUB })
> 
> Currently, llvm does not support XSUB, should we support it in llvm?
> At source code, as implemented in JIT, user can just do a negate
> followed by xadd.

I forgot we have BPF_NEG insn :)
Indeed it's probably easier to handle atomic_fetch_sub() builtin
completely on llvm side. It can generate bpf_neg followed by atomic_fetch_add.
No need to burden verifier, interpreter and JITs with it.