[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z3x-qSHxWTw5je1O@google.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2025 01:08:57 +0000
From: Peilin Ye <yepeilin@...gle.com>
To: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>
Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>,
Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@...nel.org>,
Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@...weicloud.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Quentin Monnet <qmo@...nel.org>,
Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@...com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>, Barret Rhoden <brho@...gle.com>,
Neel Natu <neelnatu@...gle.com>,
Benjamin Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
David Vernet <dvernet@...a.com>,
Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@...a.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC bpf-next v1 2/4] bpf: Introduce load-acquire and
store-release instructions
Hi Eduard,
Thanks for the review!
On Fri, Jan 03, 2025 at 04:12:08PM -0800, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> On Sat, 2024-12-21 at 01:25 +0000, Peilin Ye wrote:
> > Introduce BPF instructions with load-acquire and store-release
> > semantics, as discussed in [1]. The following new flags are defined:
>
> The '[1]' link is missing.
Oops, thanks.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240729183246.4110549-1-yepeilin@google.com/
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/disasm.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/disasm.c
> > @@ -267,6 +267,20 @@ void print_bpf_insn(const struct bpf_insn_cbs *cbs,
> > BPF_SIZE(insn->code) == BPF_DW ? "64" : "",
> > bpf_ldst_string[BPF_SIZE(insn->code) >> 3],
> > insn->dst_reg, insn->off, insn->src_reg);
> > + } else if (BPF_MODE(insn->code) == BPF_ATOMIC &&
> > + insn->imm == BPF_LOAD_ACQ) {
> > + verbose(cbs->private_data, "(%02x) %s%d = load_acquire((%s *)(r%d %+d))\n",
> > + insn->code,
> > + BPF_SIZE(insn->code) == BPF_DW ? "r" : "w", insn->dst_reg,
>
> Nit: I think that 'BPF_DW ? "r" : "w"' part is not really necessary.
We already do that in other places in the file, so I wanted to keep it
consistent:
$ git grep "? 'w' : 'r'" kernel/bpf/disasm.c | wc -l
8
(Though I just realized that I could've used '%c' instead of '%s'.)
> > static int check_atomic(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx, struct bpf_insn *insn)
> > {
> > + const int bpf_size = BPF_SIZE(insn->code);
> > + bool write_only = false;
> > int load_reg;
> > int err;
> >
> > @@ -7564,17 +7566,21 @@ static int check_atomic(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx, struct bpf_i
> > case BPF_XOR | BPF_FETCH:
> > case BPF_XCHG:
> > case BPF_CMPXCHG:
> > + if (bpf_size != BPF_W && bpf_size != BPF_DW) {
> > + verbose(env, "invalid atomic operand size\n");
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > + break;
> > + case BPF_LOAD_ACQ:
>
> Several notes here:
> - This skips the 'bpf_jit_supports_insn()' call at the end of the function.
> - Also 'check_load()' allows source register to be PTR_TO_CTX,
> but convert_ctx_access() is not adjusted to handle these atomic instructions.
> (Just in case: context access is special, context structures are not "real",
> e.g. during runtime real sk_buff is passed to the program, not __sk_buff,
> in convert_ctx_access() verifier adjusts offsets of load and store instructions
> to point to real fields, this is done per program type, e.g. see
> filter.c:bpf_convert_ctx_access);
I see, thanks for pointing these out! I'll add logic to handle
BPF_LOAD_ACQ in check_atomic() directly, instead of introducing
check_load(). I'll disallow using BPF_LOAD_ACQ with src_reg being
PTR_TO_CTX (just like all existing BPF_ATOMIC instructions), as we don't
think there'll be a use case for it.
> - backtrack_insn() needs special rules to handle BPF_LOAD_ACQ same way
> it handles loads.
Got it, I'll read backtrack_insn().
> > + return check_load(env, insn, "atomic");
> > + case BPF_STORE_REL:
> > + write_only = true;
> > break;
> > default:
> > verbose(env, "BPF_ATOMIC uses invalid atomic opcode %02x\n", insn->imm);
> > return -EINVAL;
> > }
> >
> > - if (BPF_SIZE(insn->code) != BPF_W && BPF_SIZE(insn->code) != BPF_DW) {
> > - verbose(env, "invalid atomic operand size\n");
> > - return -EINVAL;
> > - }
> > -
> > /* check src1 operand */
> > err = check_reg_arg(env, insn->src_reg, SRC_OP);
> > if (err)
>
> Note: this code fragment looks as follows:
>
> /* check src1 operand */
> err = check_reg_arg(env, insn->src_reg, SRC_OP);
> if (err)
> return err;
>
> /* check src2 operand */
> err = check_reg_arg(env, insn->dst_reg, SRC_OP);
> if (err)
> return err;
>
> And there is no need for 'check_reg_arg(env, insn->dst_reg, SRC_OP)'
> for BPF_STORE_REL.
Why is that? IIUC, 'check_reg_arg(..., SRC_OP)' checks if we can read
the register, instead of the memory? For example, doing
'check_reg_arg(env, insn->dst_reg, SRC_OP)' prevents BPF_STORE_REL from
using an uninitialized dst_reg.
We also do this check for BPF_ST in do_check():
} else if (class == BPF_ST) {
enum bpf_reg_type dst_reg_type;
<...>
/* check src operand */
err = check_reg_arg(env, insn->dst_reg, SRC_OP);
if (err)
return err;
Thanks,
Peilin Ye
Powered by blists - more mailing lists