Message-ID: <e07a6fd9-9810-4288-97ce-33c97f4ac30e@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 18 May 2025 16:08:34 +0530
From: Hari Bathini <hbathini@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Luis Gerhorst <luis.gerhorst@....de>, Alexei Starovoitov
 <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        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>,
        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>,
        Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@...nel.org>,
        Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@...weicloud.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
        Naveen N Rao <naveen@...nel.org>,
        Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>, Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@...com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Henriette Herzog <henriette.herzog@....de>,
        Saket Kumar Bhaskar <skb99@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Cupertino Miranda <cupertino.miranda@...cle.com>,
        Jiayuan Chen <mrpre@....com>, Matan Shachnai <m.shachnai@...il.com>,
        Dimitar Kanaliev <dimitar.kanaliev@...eground.com>,
        Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@...e.com>, Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Maximilian Ott <ott@...fau.de>, Milan Stephan <milan.stephan@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 05/11] bpf, arm64, powerpc: Add
 bpf_jit_bypass_spec_v1/v4()



On 01/05/25 1:05 pm, Luis Gerhorst wrote:
> JITs can set bpf_jit_bypass_spec_v1/v4() if they want the verifier to
> skip analysis/patching for the respective vulnerability. For v4, this
> will reduce the number of barriers the verifier inserts. For v1, it
> allows more programs to be accepted.
> 
> The primary motivation for this is to not regress unpriv BPF's
> performance on ARM64 in a future commit where BPF_NOSPEC is also used
> against Spectre v1.
> 
> This has the user-visible change that v1-induced rejections on
> non-vulnerable PowerPC CPUs are avoided.
> 
> For now, this does not change the semantics of BPF_NOSPEC. It is still a
> v4-only barrier and must not be implemented if bypass_spec_v4 is always
> true for the arch. Changing it to a v1 AND v4-barrier is done in a
> future commit.
> 
> As an alternative to bypass_spec_v1/v4, one could introduce NOSPEC_V1
> AND NOSPEC_V4 instructions and allow backends to skip their lowering as
> suggested by commit f5e81d111750 ("bpf: Introduce BPF nospec instruction
> for mitigating Spectre v4"). Adding bpf_jit_bypass_spec_v1/v4() was
> found to be preferable for the following reason:
> 
> * bypass_spec_v1/v4 benefits non-vulnerable CPUs: Always performing the
>    same analysis (not taking into account whether the current CPU is
>    vulnerable), needlessly restricts users of CPUs that are not
>    vulnerable. The only use case for this would be portability-testing,
>    but this can later be added easily when needed by allowing users to
>    force bypass_spec_v1/v4 to false.
> 
> * Portability is still acceptable: Directly disabling the analysis
>    instead of skipping the lowering of BPF_NOSPEC(_V1/V4) might allow
>    programs on non-vulnerable CPUs to be accepted while the program will
>    be rejected on vulnerable CPUs. With the fallback to speculation
>    barriers for Spectre v1 implemented in a future commit, this will only
>    affect programs that do variable stack-accesses or are very complex.
> 
> For PowerPC, the SEC_FTR checking in bpf_jit_bypass_spec_v4() is based
> on the check that was previously located in the BPF_NOSPEC case.
> 
> For LoongArch, it would likely be safe to set both
> bpf_jit_bypass_spec_v1() and _v4() according to
> commit a6f6a95f2580 ("LoongArch, bpf: Fix jit to skip speculation
> barrier opcode"). This is omitted here as I am unable to do any testing
> for LoongArch.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Luis Gerhorst <luis.gerhorst@....de>
> Cc: Henriette Herzog <henriette.herzog@....de>
> Cc: Maximilian Ott <ott@...fau.de>
> Cc: Milan Stephan <milan.stephan@....de>

for the powerpc part..

Acked-by: Hari Bathini <hbathini@...ux.ibm.com>

> ---
>   arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c     | 21 ++++++++++++---------
>   arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++----
>   include/linux/bpf.h               | 11 +++++++++--
>   kernel/bpf/core.c                 | 15 +++++++++++++++
>   4 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> index 70d7c89d3ac9..0f617b55866e 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> @@ -1583,15 +1583,7 @@ static int build_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct jit_ctx *ctx,
>   
>   	/* speculation barrier */
>   	case BPF_ST | BPF_NOSPEC:
> -		/*
> -		 * Nothing required here.
> -		 *
> -		 * In case of arm64, we rely on the firmware mitigation of
> -		 * Speculative Store Bypass as controlled via the ssbd kernel
> -		 * parameter. Whenever the mitigation is enabled, it works
> -		 * for all of the kernel code with no need to provide any
> -		 * additional instructions.
> -		 */
> +		/* See bpf_jit_bypass_spec_v4() */
>   		break;
>   
>   	/* ST: *(size *)(dst + off) = imm */
> @@ -2762,6 +2754,17 @@ bool bpf_jit_supports_percpu_insn(void)
>   	return true;
>   }
>   
> +bool bpf_jit_bypass_spec_v4(void)
> +{
> +	/* In case of arm64, we rely on the firmware mitigation of Speculative
> +	 * Store Bypass as controlled via the ssbd kernel parameter. Whenever
> +	 * the mitigation is enabled, it works for all of the kernel code with
> +	 * no need to provide any additional instructions. Therefore, skip
> +	 * inserting nospec insns against Spectre v4.
> +	 */
> +	return true;
> +}
> +
>   bool bpf_jit_inlines_helper_call(s32 imm)
>   {
>   	switch (imm) {
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> index 233703b06d7c..b5339c541283 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> @@ -363,6 +363,23 @@ static int bpf_jit_emit_tail_call(u32 *image, struct codegen_context *ctx, u32 o
>   	return 0;
>   }
>   
> +bool bpf_jit_bypass_spec_v1(void)
> +{
> +#if defined(CONFIG_PPC_E500) || defined(CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3S_64)
> +	return !(security_ftr_enabled(SEC_FTR_FAVOUR_SECURITY) &&
> +		 security_ftr_enabled(SEC_FTR_BNDS_CHK_SPEC_BAR));
> +#else
> +	return true;
> +#endif
> +}
> +
> +bool bpf_jit_bypass_spec_v4(void)
> +{
> +	return !(security_ftr_enabled(SEC_FTR_FAVOUR_SECURITY) &&
> +		 security_ftr_enabled(SEC_FTR_STF_BARRIER) &&
> +		 stf_barrier_type_get() != STF_BARRIER_NONE);
> +}
> +
>   /*
>    * We spill into the redzone always, even if the bpf program has its own stackframe.
>    * Offsets hardcoded based on BPF_PPC_STACK_SAVE -- see bpf_jit_stack_local()
> @@ -785,10 +802,6 @@ int bpf_jit_build_body(struct bpf_prog *fp, u32 *image, u32 *fimage, struct code
>   		 * BPF_ST NOSPEC (speculation barrier)
>   		 */
>   		case BPF_ST | BPF_NOSPEC:
> -			if (!security_ftr_enabled(SEC_FTR_FAVOUR_SECURITY) ||
> -					!security_ftr_enabled(SEC_FTR_STF_BARRIER))
> -				break;
> -
>   			switch (stf_barrier) {
>   			case STF_BARRIER_EIEIO:
>   				EMIT(PPC_RAW_EIEIO() | 0x02000000);
> diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
> index 3f0cc89c0622..6f5e54c680db 100644
> --- a/include/linux/bpf.h
> +++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
> @@ -2268,6 +2268,9 @@ bpf_prog_run_array_uprobe(const struct bpf_prog_array *array,
>   	return ret;
>   }
>   
> +bool bpf_jit_bypass_spec_v1(void);
> +bool bpf_jit_bypass_spec_v4(void);
> +
>   #ifdef CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL
>   DECLARE_PER_CPU(int, bpf_prog_active);
>   extern struct mutex bpf_stats_enabled_mutex;
> @@ -2455,12 +2458,16 @@ static inline bool bpf_allow_uninit_stack(const struct bpf_token *token)
>   
>   static inline bool bpf_bypass_spec_v1(const struct bpf_token *token)
>   {
> -	return cpu_mitigations_off() || bpf_token_capable(token, CAP_PERFMON);
> +	return bpf_jit_bypass_spec_v1() ||
> +		cpu_mitigations_off() ||
> +		bpf_token_capable(token, CAP_PERFMON);
>   }
>   
>   static inline bool bpf_bypass_spec_v4(const struct bpf_token *token)
>   {
> -	return cpu_mitigations_off() || bpf_token_capable(token, CAP_PERFMON);
> +	return bpf_jit_bypass_spec_v4() ||
> +		cpu_mitigations_off() ||
> +		bpf_token_capable(token, CAP_PERFMON);
>   }
>   
>   int bpf_map_new_fd(struct bpf_map *map, int flags);
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c
> index ba6b6118cf50..804f1e52bfa3 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c
> @@ -3029,6 +3029,21 @@ bool __weak bpf_jit_needs_zext(void)
>   	return false;
>   }
>   
> +/* By default, enable the verifier's mitigations against Spectre v1 and v4 for
> + * all archs. The value returned must not change at runtime as there is
> + * currently no support for reloading programs that were loaded without
> + * mitigations.
> + */
> +bool __weak bpf_jit_bypass_spec_v1(void)
> +{
> +	return false;
> +}
> +
> +bool __weak bpf_jit_bypass_spec_v4(void)
> +{
> +	return false;
> +}
> +
>   /* Return true if the JIT inlines the call to the helper corresponding to
>    * the imm.
>    *

Powered by blists - more mailing lists