| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAEf4BzZVUPZHyuyt6zGZVTQ3sB8u64Wxfuks9BGq-HXGM1yp3A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2024 16:54:25 -0700
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To: Liao Chang <liaochang1@...wei.com>, will@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com
Cc: catalin.marinas@....com, ast@...nel.org, puranjay@...nel.org,
andrii@...nel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: insn: Simulate nop instruction for better
uprobe performance
On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 12:21 AM Liao Chang <liaochang1@...wei.com> wrote:
>
> v2->v1:
> 1. Remove the simuation of STP and the related bits.
> 2. Use arm64_skip_faulting_instruction for single-stepping or FEAT_BTI
> scenario.
>
> As Andrii pointed out, the uprobe/uretprobe selftest bench run into a
> counterintuitive result that nop and push variants are much slower than
> ret variant [0]. The root cause lies in the arch_probe_analyse_insn(),
> which excludes 'nop' and 'stp' from the emulatable instructions list.
> This force the kernel returns to userspace and execute them out-of-line,
> then trapping back to kernel for running uprobe callback functions. This
> leads to a significant performance overhead compared to 'ret' variant,
> which is already emulated.
>
> Typicall uprobe is installed on 'nop' for USDT and on function entry
> which starts with the instrucion 'stp x29, x30, [sp, #imm]!' to push lr
> and fp into stack regardless kernel or userspace binary. In order to
> improve the performance of handling uprobe for common usecases. This
> patch supports the emulation of Arm64 equvialents instructions of 'nop'
> and 'push'. The benchmark results below indicates the performance gain
> of emulation is obvious.
>
> On Kunpeng916 (Hi1616), 4 NUMA nodes, 64 Arm64 cores@...GHz.
>
> xol (1 cpus)
> ------------
> uprobe-nop: 0.916 ± 0.001M/s (0.916M/prod)
> uprobe-push: 0.908 ± 0.001M/s (0.908M/prod)
> uprobe-ret: 1.855 ± 0.000M/s (1.855M/prod)
> uretprobe-nop: 0.640 ± 0.000M/s (0.640M/prod)
> uretprobe-push: 0.633 ± 0.001M/s (0.633M/prod)
> uretprobe-ret: 0.978 ± 0.003M/s (0.978M/prod)
>
> emulation (1 cpus)
> -------------------
> uprobe-nop: 1.862 ± 0.002M/s (1.862M/prod)
> uprobe-push: 1.743 ± 0.006M/s (1.743M/prod)
> uprobe-ret: 1.840 ± 0.001M/s (1.840M/prod)
> uretprobe-nop: 0.964 ± 0.004M/s (0.964M/prod)
> uretprobe-push: 0.936 ± 0.004M/s (0.936M/prod)
> uretprobe-ret: 0.940 ± 0.001M/s (0.940M/prod)
>
> As shown above, the performance gap between 'nop/push' and 'ret'
> variants has been significantly reduced. Due to the emulation of 'push'
> instruction needs to access userspace memory, it spent more cycles than
> the other.
>
> As Mark suggested [1], it is painful to emulate the correct atomicity
> and ordering properties of STP, especially when it interacts with MTE,
> POE, etc. So this patch just focus on the simuation of 'nop'. The
> simluation of STP and related changes will be addressed in a separate
> patch.
>
> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAEf4BzaO4eG6hr2hzXYpn+7Uer4chS0R99zLn02ezZ5YruVuQw@mail.gmail.com/
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/Zr3RN4zxF5XPgjEB@J2N7QTR9R3/
>
> CC: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
> CC: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
> Signed-off-by: Liao Chang <liaochang1@...wei.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/insn.h | 6 ++++++
> arch/arm64/kernel/probes/decode-insn.c | 9 +++++++++
> arch/arm64/kernel/probes/simulate-insn.c | 11 +++++++++++
> arch/arm64/kernel/probes/simulate-insn.h | 1 +
> 4 files changed, 27 insertions(+)
>
I'm curious what's the status of this patch? It received no comments
so far in the last month. Can someone on the ARM64 side of things
please take a look? (or maybe it was applied to some tree and there
was just no notification?)
This is a very useful performance optimization for uprobe tracing on
ARM64, so would be nice to get it in during current release cycle.
Thank you!
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/insn.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/insn.h
> index 8c0a36f72d6f..dd530d5c3d67 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/insn.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/insn.h
> @@ -549,6 +549,12 @@ static __always_inline bool aarch64_insn_uses_literal(u32 insn)
> aarch64_insn_is_prfm_lit(insn);
> }
>
> +static __always_inline bool aarch64_insn_is_nop(u32 insn)
> +{
> + return aarch64_insn_is_hint(insn) &&
> + ((insn & 0xFE0) == AARCH64_INSN_HINT_NOP);
> +}
> +
> enum aarch64_insn_encoding_class aarch64_get_insn_class(u32 insn);
> u64 aarch64_insn_decode_immediate(enum aarch64_insn_imm_type type, u32 insn);
> u32 aarch64_insn_encode_immediate(enum aarch64_insn_imm_type type,
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/decode-insn.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/decode-insn.c
> index 968d5fffe233..be54539e309e 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/decode-insn.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/decode-insn.c
> @@ -75,6 +75,15 @@ static bool __kprobes aarch64_insn_is_steppable(u32 insn)
> enum probe_insn __kprobes
> arm_probe_decode_insn(probe_opcode_t insn, struct arch_probe_insn *api)
> {
> + /*
> + * While 'nop' instruction can execute in the out-of-line slot,
> + * simulating them in breakpoint handling offers better performance.
> + */
> + if (aarch64_insn_is_nop(insn)) {
> + api->handler = simulate_nop;
> + return INSN_GOOD_NO_SLOT;
> + }
> +
> /*
> * Instructions reading or modifying the PC won't work from the XOL
> * slot.
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/simulate-insn.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/simulate-insn.c
> index 22d0b3252476..5e4f887a074c 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/simulate-insn.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/simulate-insn.c
> @@ -200,3 +200,14 @@ simulate_ldrsw_literal(u32 opcode, long addr, struct pt_regs *regs)
>
> instruction_pointer_set(regs, instruction_pointer(regs) + 4);
> }
> +
> +void __kprobes
> +simulate_nop(u32 opcode, long addr, struct pt_regs *regs)
> +{
> + /*
> + * Compared to instruction_pointer_set(), it offers better
> + * compatibility with single-stepping and execution in target
> + * guarded memory.
> + */
> + arm64_skip_faulting_instruction(regs, AARCH64_INSN_SIZE);
> +}
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/simulate-insn.h b/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/simulate-insn.h
> index e065dc92218e..efb2803ec943 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/simulate-insn.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/simulate-insn.h
> @@ -16,5 +16,6 @@ void simulate_cbz_cbnz(u32 opcode, long addr, struct pt_regs *regs);
> void simulate_tbz_tbnz(u32 opcode, long addr, struct pt_regs *regs);
> void simulate_ldr_literal(u32 opcode, long addr, struct pt_regs *regs);
> void simulate_ldrsw_literal(u32 opcode, long addr, struct pt_regs *regs);
> +void simulate_nop(u32 opcode, long addr, struct pt_regs *regs);
>
> #endif /* _ARM_KERNEL_KPROBES_SIMULATE_INSN_H */
> --
> 2.34.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists