netdev - Re: [PATCH v7 bpf-next 06/10] tracepoint: compute num

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: <80d7af37-10ef-28d7-f03f-27b4b5849cd1@fb.com>
Date:   Wed, 28 Mar 2018 11:03:24 -0700
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-team <kernel-team@...com>,
        linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 bpf-next 06/10] tracepoint: compute num_args at build
 time

On 3/28/18 10:38 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 10:10:34 -0700
> Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com> wrote:
>
>
>>> and have:
>>>
>>> 	u64 tp_offset = (u64)tp - (u64)_sdata;
>>>
>>> 	if (WARN_ON(tp_offset > UINT_MAX)
>>> 		return -EINVAL;
>>>
>>> 	 btp->tp_offset = (u32)tp_offset;
>>
>> above math has to be build time constant, so warn_on likely
>> won't work.
>
> Right, it would require a BUILD_BUG_ON.
>
>> imo the whole thing is too fragile and obscure.
>> I suggest to compress this 8 bytes * num_of_tracepoints later.
>> Especially would be good to do it in one way for
>> bpf_raw_event_map, ftrace and other places.
>
> Fair enough. We can defer this shrinkage to another time. I only
> suggested it here over your concern for the added bloat.

Actually, I will take it back.
I think the current shape of the patch is better.
struct tracepoint is aligned to 32-bytes by linker
Though sizeof(struct tracepoint) == 48 it actually consumes 64 bytes
of memory.
(gdb) p (void*)&__tracepoint_sys_enter - (void*)&__tracepoint_sys_exit
$3 = 64

Adding num_args to 'struct tracepoint' makes it sizeof==56,
but it still takes 64-bytes in memory.

In this patch sizeof(struct bpf_raw_tp_map) == 16 and
(gdb) p (void*)&__bpf_trace_tp_map_sys_enter - 
(void*)&__bpf_trace_tp_map_sys_exit
$3 = 16

so it consumes exactly the same 16-bytes.
If we add 'u32 num_args' to it, it will have
sizeof(struct bpf_raw_tp_map) == 24 and will consume 32-bytes
of memory.

So clearly adding num_args to struct tracepont gives zero additional
bloat vs before this patch set, whereas moving it to
struct bpf_raw_tp_map will add 16 * num_of_tracepoints bytes of memory.

I can live with this overhead if Mathieu insists,
but I prefer to keep it in 'struct tracepoint'.

Thoughts?