linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 4/9] bpf: Introduce load-acquire and store-release instructions

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: <CAADnVQ+OyoBPOJk6dcUFozTt0RD-o-hHdR4Dgy+dK2r0uHyC7Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 21:55:43 -0800
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Peilin Ye <yepeilin@...gle.com>
Cc: bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, 
	linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, bpf@...f.org, 
	Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@...weicloud.com>, Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>, 
	David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, 
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, 
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, 
	Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...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>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, 
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>, Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@...nel.org>, 
	Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@...ux.ibm.com>, Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>, Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.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>, 
	Ihor Solodrai <ihor.solodrai@...ux.dev>, Yingchi Long <longyingchi24s@....ac.cn>, 
	Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>, Barret Rhoden <brho@...gle.com>, Neel Natu <neelnatu@...gle.com>, 
	Benjamin Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 4/9] bpf: Introduce load-acquire and
 store-release instructions

On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 2:14 PM Peilin Ye <yepeilin@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 10:51:11PM +0000, Peilin Ye wrote:
> > > >   #define BPF_LOAD_ACQ   0x10
> > > >   #define BPF_STORE_REL  0x20

so that was broken then,
since BPF_SUB 0x10 ?

And original thing was also completely broken for
BPF_ATOMIC_LOAD | BPF_RELAXED == 0x10 == BPF_SUB ?

so much for "lets define relaxed, acquire,
release, acq_rel for completeness".
:(

> > >
> > > why not 1 and 2 ?
> >
> > I just realized that we can't do 1 and 2 because BPF_ADD | BPF_FETCH
> > also equals 1.
> >
> > > All other bits are reserved and the verifier will make sure they're zero
> >
> > IOW, we can't tell if imm<4-7> is reserved or BPF_ADD (0x00).  What
> > would you suggest?  Maybe:
> >
> >   #define BPF_ATOMIC_LD_ST 0x10
> >
> >   #define BPF_LOAD_ACQ      0x1
> >   #define BPF_STORE_REL     0x2

This is also broken, since
BPF_ATOMIC_LD_ST | BPF_LOAD_ACQ == 0x11 == BPF_SUB | BPF_FETCH.

BPF_SUB | BPF_FETCH is invalid at the moment,
but such aliasing is bad.

> >
> > ?
>
> Or, how about reusing 0xb in imm<4-7>:
>
>   #define BPF_ATOMIC_LD_ST 0xb0
>
>   #define BPF_LOAD_ACQ      0x1
>   #define BPF_STORE_REL     0x2
>
> 0xb is BPF_MOV in BPFArithOp<>, and we'll never need it for BPF_ATOMIC.
> Instead of moving values between registers, we now "move" values from/to
> the memory - if I can think of it that way.

and BPF_ATOMIC_LD_ST | BPF_LOAD_ACQ would == BPF_MOV | BPF_FETCH ?

Not pretty and confusing.

BPF_FETCH modifier means that "do whatever opcode says to do,
like add in memory, but also return the value into insn->src_reg"

Which doesn't fit this BPF_ATOMIC_LD_ST | BPF_LOAD_ACQ semantics
which loads into _dst_reg_.

How about:
#define BPF_LOAD_ACQ 2
#define BPF_STORE_REL 3

and only use them with BPF_MOV like

imm = BPF_MOV | BPF_LOAD_ACQ - is actual load acquire
imm = BPF_MOV | BPF_STORE_REL - release

Thought 2 stands on its own,
it's also equal to BPF_ADD | BPF_LOAD_ACQ
which is kinda ugly, so I don't like to use 2 alone.

> Or, do we want to start to use the remaining bits of the imm field (i.e.
> imm<8-31>) ?

Maybe.
Sort-of.
Since #define BPF_CMPXCHG     (0xf0 | BPF_FETCH)
another option would be:

#define BPF_LOAD_ACQ 0x100
#define BPF_STORE_REL 0x110

essentially extending op type to:
BPF_ATOMIC_TYPE(imm)    ((imm) & 0x1f0)

All options are not great.
I feel we need to step back.
Is there an architecture that has sign extending load acquire ?

Looks like arm doesn't, and I couldn't find any arch that does.
Then maybe we should reconsider BPF_LDX/STX and use BPF_MODE
to distinguish from normal ldx/stx

#define BPF_ACQ_REL 0xe0

BPF_LDX | BPF_ACQ_REL | BPF_W
BPF_STX | BPF_ACQ_REL | BPF_W

?