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: <20231128210615.875085-17-sashal@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 28 Nov 2023 16:05:23 -0500
From:   Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, daniel@...earbox.net,
        shuah@...nel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH AUTOSEL 6.6 17/40] selftests/bpf: fix bpf_loop_bench for new callback verification scheme

From: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>

[ Upstream commit f40bfd1679446b22d321e64a1fa98b7d07d2be08 ]

This is a preparatory change. A follow-up patch "bpf: verify callbacks
as if they are called unknown number of times" changes logic for
callbacks handling. While previously callbacks were verified as a
single function call, new scheme takes into account that callbacks
could be executed unknown number of times.

This has dire implications for bpf_loop_bench:

    SEC("fentry/" SYS_PREFIX "sys_getpgid")
    int benchmark(void *ctx)
    {
            for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
                    bpf_loop(nr_loops, empty_callback, NULL, 0);
                    __sync_add_and_fetch(&hits, nr_loops);
            }
            return 0;
    }

W/o callbacks change verifier sees it as a 1000 calls to
empty_callback(). However, with callbacks change things become
exponential:
- i=0: state exploring empty_callback is scheduled with i=0 (a);
- i=1: state exploring empty_callback is scheduled with i=1;
  ...
- i=999: state exploring empty_callback is scheduled with i=999;
- state (a) is popped from stack;
- i=1: state exploring empty_callback is scheduled with i=1;
  ...

Avoid this issue by rewriting outer loop as bpf_loop().
Unfortunately, this adds a function call to a loop at runtime, which
negatively affects performance:

            throughput               latency
   before:  149.919 ± 0.168 M ops/s, 6.670 ns/op
   after :  137.040 ± 0.187 M ops/s, 7.297 ns/op

Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231121020701.26440-4-eddyz87@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_loop_bench.c | 13 ++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_loop_bench.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_loop_bench.c
index 4ce76eb064c41..d461746fd3c1e 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_loop_bench.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_loop_bench.c
@@ -15,13 +15,16 @@ static int empty_callback(__u32 index, void *data)
 	return 0;
 }
 
+static int outer_loop(__u32 index, void *data)
+{
+	bpf_loop(nr_loops, empty_callback, NULL, 0);
+	__sync_add_and_fetch(&hits, nr_loops);
+	return 0;
+}
+
 SEC("fentry/" SYS_PREFIX "sys_getpgid")
 int benchmark(void *ctx)
 {
-	for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
-		bpf_loop(nr_loops, empty_callback, NULL, 0);
-
-		__sync_add_and_fetch(&hits, nr_loops);
-	}
+	bpf_loop(1000, outer_loop, NULL, 0);
 	return 0;
 }
-- 
2.42.0

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ