netdev - Re: [PATH bpf-next 00/13] bpf: propose new jmp32 instructions

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: <20181220030857.v32y5ywpzw3pqcab@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Wed, 19 Dec 2018 19:08:59 -0800
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@...ronome.com>
Cc:     ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        oss-drivers@...ronome.com,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Paul Burton <paul.burton@...s.com>,
        Wang YanQing <udknight@...il.com>,
        Zi Shen Lim <zlim.lnx@...il.com>,
        Shubham Bansal <illusionist.neo@...il.com>,
        "Naveen N . Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Sandipan Das <sandipan@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATH bpf-next 00/13] bpf: propose new jmp32 instructions

On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 05:44:07PM -0500, Jiong Wang wrote:
> Current eBPF ISA has 32-bit sub-register and has defined a set of ALU32
> instructions.
> 
> However, there is no JMP32 instructions, the consequence is code-gen for
> 32-bit sub-registers is not efficient. For example, explicit sign-extension
> from 32-bit to 64-bit is needed for signed comparison.
> 
> Adding JMP32 instruction therefore could complete eBPF ISA on 32-bit
> sub-register support. This also match those JMP32 instructions in most JIT
> backends, for example x64-64 and AArch64. These new eBPF JMP32 instructions
> could have one-to-one map on them.
> 
> A few verifier ALU32 related bugs has been fixed recently, and JMP32
> introduced by this set further improves BPF sub-register ecosystem. Once
> this is landed, BPF programs using 32-bit sub-register ISA could get
> reasonably good support from verifier and JIT compilers. Users then could
> compare the runtime efficiency of one BPF program under both modes, and
> could use the one benchmarked as better. One good thing is JMP32 is making 
> 32-bit JIT more efficient, because it only has 32-bit use, no def, so
> unlike ALU32, no need to clear high bits. Hence, even without data-flow
> analysis, JMP32 is making better code-gen then JMP64. More benchmark
> results are listed below in this cover letter.
> 
>  - Encoding
> 
>    Ideally, JMP32 could use new CLASS BPF_JMP32, just like BPF_ALU and
>    BPF_ALU32. But we only has one class number 0x06 unused. I am not sure
>    if we want to keep it for other extension purpose. For example restore
>    it as BPF_MISC which could then redefine the interpretation of all the 
>    remaining bits in bis[7:1];
> 
>    So, I am following the coding style used by BPF_PSEUDO_CALL, that is to
>    use reserved bits under BPF_JMP. When BPF_SRC(code) == BPF_X, the
>    encoding is 0x1 at insn->imm. When BPF_SRC(code) == BPF_K, the encoding
>    is 0x1 at insn->src_reg. All other bits in imm and src_reg are still
>    reserved and should be zeroed.

this choice of encoding penalizes interpreter a lot, since every jmp
(both 64 and 32-bit) become multiple conditional branches.
I suspect interpreter performance suffers a lot.

We can still use such encoding for uapi and recode to 256 opcodes,
but why jump the hoops when class 6 is still unused?
Just use it for BPF_JMP32.
It will also help avoid issues with JITs that rely on opcode
to do conversion.
Like if we don't convert all JITs with the proposed encoding
unconverted JITs will generate 64-bit jmp for 32-bit one,
since they didn't check insn->imm or src_reg.