netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/3] bpf powerpc: implement support for tail calls

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: <20160926085622.GG15470@naverao1-tp.localdomain>
Date:   Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:26:22 +0530
From:   "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] bpf powerpc: implement support for tail calls

On 2016/09/24 03:30AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 12:33:54AM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > On 09/23/2016 10:35 PM, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
> > >Tail calls allow JIT'ed eBPF programs to call into other JIT'ed eBPF
> > >programs. This can be achieved either by:
> > >(1) retaining the stack setup by the first eBPF program and having all
> > >subsequent eBPF programs re-using it, or,
> > >(2) by unwinding/tearing down the stack and having each eBPF program
> > >deal with its own stack as it sees fit.
> > >
> > >To ensure that this does not create loops, there is a limit to how many
> > >tail calls can be done (currently 32). This requires the JIT'ed code to
> > >maintain a count of the number of tail calls done so far.
> > >
> > >Approach (1) is simple, but requires every eBPF program to have (almost)
> > >the same prologue/epilogue, regardless of whether they need it. This is
> > >inefficient for small eBPF programs which may not sometimes need a
> > >prologue at all. As such, to minimize impact of tail call
> > >implementation, we use approach (2) here which needs each eBPF program
> > >in the chain to use its own prologue/epilogue. This is not ideal when
> > >many tail calls are involved and when all the eBPF programs in the chain
> > >have similar prologue/epilogue. However, the impact is restricted to
> > >programs that do tail calls. Individual eBPF programs are not affected.
> > >
> > >We maintain the tail call count in a fixed location on the stack and
> > >updated tail call count values are passed in through this. The very
> > >first eBPF program in a chain sets this up to 0 (the first 2
> > >instructions). Subsequent tail calls skip the first two eBPF JIT
> > >instructions to maintain the count. For programs that don't do tail
> > >calls themselves, the first two instructions are NOPs.
> > >
> > >Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > 
> > Thanks for adding support, Naveen, that's really great! I think 2) seems
> > fine as well in this context as prologue size can vary quite a bit here,
> > and depending on program types likelihood of tail call usage as well (but
> > I wouldn't expect deep nesting). Thanks a lot!
> 
> Great stuff. In this circumstances approach 2 makes sense to me as well.

Alexie, Daniel,
Thanks for the quick review!

- Naveen