| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAEyhmHTg3xNMBrSxXQj96pvfD83t6_RHRT_GGtbBzOpAKztDpw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2025 10:02:51 +0800
From: Hengqi Chen <hengqi.chen@...il.com>
To: jianghaoran@...inos.cn
Cc: loongarch@...ts.linux.dev, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...0n.name, chenhuacai@...nel.org,
yangtiezhu@...ngson.cn, haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org, sdf@...ichev.me,
kpsingh@...nel.org, john.fastabend@...il.com, yonghong.song@...ux.dev,
song@...nel.org, eddyz87@...il.com, martin.lau@...ux.dev, andrii@...nel.org,
daniel@...earbox.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LoongArch: BPF: Optimize the calculation method of
jmp_offset in the emit_bpf_tail_call function
Hi Haoran,
On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 6:40 PM Haoran Jiang <jianghaoran@...inos.cn> wrote:
>
> For a ebpf subprog JIT，the last call bpf_int_jit_compile function will
> directly enter the skip_init_ctx process. At this point, out_offset = -1,
> the jmp_offset in emit_bpf_tail_call is calculated
> by #define jmp_offset (out_offset - (cur_offset)) is a negative number,
> which does not meet expectations.The final generated assembly as follow.
>
> 54: bgeu $a2, $t1, -8 # 0x0000004c
> 58: addi.d $a6, $s5, -1
> 5c: bltz $a6, -16 # 0x0000004c
> 60: alsl.d $t2, $a2, $a1, 0x3
> 64: ld.d $t2, $t2, 264
> 68: beq $t2, $zero, -28 # 0x0000004c
>
> Before apply this patch, the follow test case will reveal soft lock issues.
>
> cd tools/testing/selftests/bpf/
> ./test_progs --allow=tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_1
>
> dmesg:
> watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#2 stuck for 26s! [test_progs:25056]
>
This is a known issue. Does this change pass all tailcall tests ?
If not, please refer to the tailcall hierarchy patchset([1]).
We should address it once and for all. Thanks.
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240714123902.32305-1-hffilwlqm@gmail.com/
> Signed-off-by: Haoran Jiang <jianghaoran@...inos.cn>
> ---
> arch/loongarch/net/bpf_jit.c | 28 +++++++++-------------------
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/loongarch/net/bpf_jit.c b/arch/loongarch/net/bpf_jit.c
> index fa1500d4aa3e..d85490e7de89 100644
> --- a/arch/loongarch/net/bpf_jit.c
> +++ b/arch/loongarch/net/bpf_jit.c
> @@ -208,9 +208,7 @@ bool bpf_jit_supports_far_kfunc_call(void)
> return true;
> }
>
> -/* initialized on the first pass of build_body() */
> -static int out_offset = -1;
> -static int emit_bpf_tail_call(struct jit_ctx *ctx)
> +static int emit_bpf_tail_call(int insn, struct jit_ctx *ctx)
> {
> int off;
> u8 tcc = tail_call_reg(ctx);
> @@ -220,9 +218,8 @@ static int emit_bpf_tail_call(struct jit_ctx *ctx)
> u8 t2 = LOONGARCH_GPR_T2;
> u8 t3 = LOONGARCH_GPR_T3;
> const int idx0 = ctx->idx;
> -
> -#define cur_offset (ctx->idx - idx0)
> -#define jmp_offset (out_offset - (cur_offset))
> + int tc_ninsn = 0;
> + int jmp_offset = 0;
>
> /*
> * a0: &ctx
> @@ -232,8 +229,11 @@ static int emit_bpf_tail_call(struct jit_ctx *ctx)
> * if (index >= array->map.max_entries)
> * goto out;
> */
> + tc_ninsn = insn ? ctx->offset[insn+1] - ctx->offset[insn] :
> + ctx->offset[0];
> off = offsetof(struct bpf_array, map.max_entries);
> emit_insn(ctx, ldwu, t1, a1, off);
> + jmp_offset = tc_ninsn - (ctx->idx - idx0);
> /* bgeu $a2, $t1, jmp_offset */
> if (emit_tailcall_jmp(ctx, BPF_JGE, a2, t1, jmp_offset) < 0)
> goto toofar;
> @@ -243,6 +243,7 @@ static int emit_bpf_tail_call(struct jit_ctx *ctx)
> * goto out;
> */
> emit_insn(ctx, addid, REG_TCC, tcc, -1);
> + jmp_offset = tc_ninsn - (ctx->idx - idx0);
> if (emit_tailcall_jmp(ctx, BPF_JSLT, REG_TCC, LOONGARCH_GPR_ZERO, jmp_offset) < 0)
> goto toofar;
>
> @@ -254,6 +255,7 @@ static int emit_bpf_tail_call(struct jit_ctx *ctx)
> emit_insn(ctx, alsld, t2, a2, a1, 2);
> off = offsetof(struct bpf_array, ptrs);
> emit_insn(ctx, ldd, t2, t2, off);
> + jmp_offset = tc_ninsn - (ctx->idx - idx0);
> /* beq $t2, $zero, jmp_offset */
> if (emit_tailcall_jmp(ctx, BPF_JEQ, t2, LOONGARCH_GPR_ZERO, jmp_offset) < 0)
> goto toofar;
> @@ -263,22 +265,11 @@ static int emit_bpf_tail_call(struct jit_ctx *ctx)
> emit_insn(ctx, ldd, t3, t2, off);
> __build_epilogue(ctx, true);
>
> - /* out: */
> - if (out_offset == -1)
> - out_offset = cur_offset;
> - if (cur_offset != out_offset) {
> - pr_err_once("tail_call out_offset = %d, expected %d!\n",
> - cur_offset, out_offset);
> - return -1;
> - }
> -
> return 0;
>
> toofar:
> pr_info_once("tail_call: jump too far\n");
> return -1;
> -#undef cur_offset
> -#undef jmp_offset
> }
>
> static void emit_atomic(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct jit_ctx *ctx)
> @@ -916,7 +907,7 @@ static int build_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct jit_ctx *ctx, bool ext
> /* tail call */
> case BPF_JMP | BPF_TAIL_CALL:
> mark_tail_call(ctx);
> - if (emit_bpf_tail_call(ctx) < 0)
> + if (emit_bpf_tail_call(i, ctx) < 0)
> return -EINVAL;
> break;
>
> @@ -1342,7 +1333,6 @@ struct bpf_prog *bpf_int_jit_compile(struct bpf_prog *prog)
> if (tmp_blinded)
> bpf_jit_prog_release_other(prog, prog == orig_prog ? tmp : orig_prog);
>
> - out_offset = -1;
>
> return prog;
>
> --
> 2.43.0
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists