linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 17/17] powerpc64/bpf: Add support for bpf trampolines

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: <32249e74-633d-4757-8931-742b682a63d3@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2024 11:03:38 +0530
From: Hari Bathini <hbathini@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-trace-kernel <linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
        Vishal Chourasia <vishalc@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Mahesh J Salgaonkar <mahesh@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 17/17] powerpc64/bpf: Add support for bpf trampolines



On 17/09/24 1:20 pm, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2024 at 10:58 PM Hari Bathini <hbathini@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>> +
>> +       /*
>> +        * Generated stack layout:
>> +        *
>> +        * func prev back chain         [ back chain        ]
>> +        *                              [                   ]
>> +        * bpf prog redzone/tailcallcnt [ ...               ] 64 bytes (64-bit powerpc)
>> +        *                              [                   ] --
> ...
>> +
>> +       /* Dummy frame size for proper unwind - includes 64-bytes red zone for 64-bit powerpc */
>> +       bpf_dummy_frame_size = STACK_FRAME_MIN_SIZE + 64;
> 
> What is the goal of such a large "red zone" ?
> The kernel stack is a limited resource.
> Why reserve 64 bytes ?
> tail call cnt can probably be optional as well.

Hi Alexei, thanks for reviewing.
FWIW, the redzone on ppc64 is 288 bytes. BPF JIT for ppc64 was using
a redzone of 80 bytes since tailcall support was introduced [1].
It came down to 64 bytes thanks to [2]. The red zone is being used
to save NVRs and tail call count when a stack is not setup. I do
agree that we should look at optimizing it further. Do you think
the optimization should go as part of PPC64 trampoline enablement
being done here or should that be taken up as a separate item, maybe?

[1] 
https://lore.kernel.org/all/40b65ab2bb3a48837ab047a70887de3ccd70c56b.1474661927.git.naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20180503230824.3462-11-daniel@iogearbox.net/

Thanks
Hari