linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC bpf-next 1/4] bpf: add struct largest member size in func model

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: <CAADnVQJjQLdc_Chvz9v2-huCb9rmi048heK-eEX30AtW10H+-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2025 16:14:47 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Alexis Lothoré <alexis.lothore@...tlin.com>
Cc: Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@...weicloud.com>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>, 
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, 
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, 
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, 
	Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, 
	Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, 
	Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@...nel.org>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, 
	Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@...com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, 
	Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>, Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>, 
	Florent Revest <revest@...omium.org>, Bastien Curutchet <bastien.curutchet@...tlin.com>, 
	ebpf@...uxfoundation.org, Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>, 
	bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, 
	"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC bpf-next 1/4] bpf: add struct largest member size in
 func model

On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 6:38 AM Alexis Lothoré
<alexis.lothore@...tlin.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Xu,
>
> On Thu Apr 24, 2025 at 2:00 PM CEST, Xu Kuohai wrote:
> > On 4/24/2025 3:24 AM, Alexis Lothoré wrote:
> >> Hi Andrii,
> >>
> >> On Wed Apr 23, 2025 at 7:15 PM CEST, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 12:14 AM Alexis Lothoré
> >>> <alexis.lothore@...tlin.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Andrii,
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed Apr 16, 2025 at 11:24 PM CEST, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 1:32 PM Alexis Lothoré (eBPF Foundation)
> >>>>> <alexis.lothore@...tlin.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> Thanks for the pointer, I'll take a look at it. The more we discuss this
> >> series, the less member size sounds relevant for what I'm trying to achieve
> >> here.
> >>
> >> Following Xu's comments, I have been thinking about how I could detect the
> >> custom alignments and packing on structures, and I was wondering if I could
> >> somehow benefit from __attribute__ encoding in BTF info ([1]). But
> >> following your hint, I also see some btf_is_struct_packed() in
> >> tools/lib/bpf/btf_dump.c that could help. I'll dig this further and see if
> >> I can manage to make something work with all of this.
> >>
> >
> > With DWARF info, we might not need to detect the structure alignment anymore,
> > since the DW_AT_location attribute tells us where the structure parameter is
> > located on the stack, and DW_AT_byte_size gives us the size of the structure.
>
> I am not sure to follow you here, because DWARF info is not accessible
> from kernel at runtime, right ? Or are you meaning that we could, at build
> time, enrich the BTF info embedded in the kernel thanks to DWARF info ?

Sounds like arm64 has complicated rules for stack alignment and
stack offset computation for passing 9th+ argument.

Since your analysis shows:
"there are about 200 functions accept 9 to 12 arguments, so adding support
for up to 12 function arguments."
I say, let's keep the existing limitation:
        if (nregs > 8)
                return -ENOTSUPP;

If there is a simple and dumb way to detect that arg9+ are scalars
with simple stack passing rules, then, sure, let's support those too,
but fancy packed/align(x)/etc let's ignore.