linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] x86/ibt: factor out cfi and fineibt offset

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: <CADxym3Zu1u1xF0k+N4gZ50jHtZ9iRRQ0ZTtt_koG8Ta+B0DPJg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2025 16:49:47 +0800
From: Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@...il.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, rostedt@...dmis.org, mark.rutland@....com, 
	alexei.starovoitov@...il.com, catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org, 
	mhiramat@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, 
	dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org, ast@...nel.org, 
	daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org, martin.lau@...ux.dev, 
	eddyz87@...il.com, yonghong.song@...ux.dev, john.fastabend@...il.com, 
	kpsingh@...nel.org, sdf@...ichev.me, jolsa@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net, 
	dsahern@...nel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, nathan@...nel.org, 
	nick.desaulniers+lkml@...il.com, morbo@...gle.com, samitolvanen@...gle.com, 
	kees@...nel.org, dongml2@...natelecom.cn, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, 
	riel@...riel.com, rppt@...nel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] x86/ibt: factor out cfi and fineibt offset

On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 4:30 PM H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>
> On March 4, 2025 5:19:09 PM PST, Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@...il.com> wrote:
> >On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 10:53 PM H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On March 4, 2025 1:42:20 AM PST, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >> >On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 03:47:45PM +0800, Menglong Dong wrote:
> >> >> We don't have to select FUNCTION_ALIGNMENT_32B, so the
> >> >> worst case is to increase ~2.2%.
> >> >>
> >> >> What do you think?
> >> >
> >> >Well, since I don't understand what you need this for at all, I'm firmly
> >> >on the side of not doing this.
> >> >
> >> >What actual problem is being solved with this meta data nonsense? Why is
> >> >it worth blowing up our I$ footprint over.
> >> >
> >> >Also note, that if you're going to be explaining this, start from
> >> >scratch, as I have absolutely 0 clues about BPF and such.
> >>
> >> I would appreciate such information as well. The idea seems dubious on the surface.
> >
> >Ok, let me explain it from the beginning. (My English is not good,
> >but I'll try to describe it as clear as possible :/)
> >
> >Many BPF program types need to depend on the BPF trampoline,
> >such as BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING, BPF_PROG_TYPE_EXT,
> >BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM, etc. BPF trampoline is a bridge between
> >the kernel (or bpf) function and BPF program, and it acts just like the
> >trampoline that ftrace uses.
> >
> >Generally speaking, it is used to hook a function, just like what ftrace
> >do:
> >
> >foo:
> >    endbr
> >    nop5  -->  call trampoline_foo
> >    xxxx
> >
> >In short, the trampoline_foo can be this:
> >
> >trampoline_foo:
> >    prepare a array and store the args of foo to the array
> >    call fentry_bpf1
> >    call fentry_bpf2
> >    ......
> >    call foo+4 (origin call)
> >    save the return value of foo
> >    call fexit_bpf1 (this bpf can get the return value of foo)
> >    call fexit_bpf2
> >    .......
> >    return to the caller of foo
> >
> >We can see that the trampoline_foo can be only used for
> >the function foo, as different kernel function can be attached
> >different BPF programs, and have different argument count,
> >etc. Therefore, we have to create 1000 BPF trampolines if
> >we want to attach a BPF program to 1000 kernel functions.
> >
> >The creation of the BPF trampoline is expensive. According to
> >my testing, It will spend more than 1 second to create 100 bpf
> >trampoline. What's more, it consumes more memory.
> >
> >If we have the per-function metadata supporting, then we can
> >create a global BPF trampoline, like this:
> >
> >trampoline_global:
> >    prepare a array and store the args of foo to the array
> >    get the metadata by the ip
> >    call metadata.fentry_bpf1
> >    call metadata.fentry_bpf2
> >    ....
> >    call foo+4 (origin call)
> >    save the return value of foo
> >    call metadata.fexit_bpf1 (this bpf can get the return value of foo)
> >    call metadata.fexit_bpf2
> >    .......
> >    return to the caller of foo
> >
> >(The metadata holds more information for the global trampoline than
> >I described.)
> >
> >Then, we don't need to create a trampoline for every kernel function
> >anymore.
> >
> >Another beneficiary can be ftrace. For now, all the kernel functions that
> >are enabled by dynamic ftrace will be added to a filter hash if there are
> >more than one callbacks. And hash lookup will happen when the traced
> >functions are called, which has an impact on the performance, see
> >__ftrace_ops_list_func() -> ftrace_ops_test(). With the per-function
> >metadata supporting, we can store the information that if the callback is
> >enabled on the kernel function to the metadata, which can make the performance
> >much better.
> >
> >The per-function metadata storage is a basic function, and I think there
> >may be other functions that can use it for better performance in the feature
> >too.
> >
> >(Hope that I'm describing it clearly :/)
> >
> >Thanks!
> >Menglong Dong
> >
>
> This is way too cursory. For one thing, you need to start by explaining why you are asking to put this *inline* with the code, which is something that normally would be avoided at all cost.

Hi,

Sorry that I don't understand the *inline* here, do you mean
why puting the metadata in the function padding?