netdev - Re: [PATCH v6 bpf-next 01/17] bpf: verifier: offer more accurate helper function arg and return type

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87v9yjk013.fsf@netronome.com>
Date:   Thu, 09 May 2019 18:31:04 +0100
From:   Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@...ronome.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     daniel@...earbox.net, bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        oss-drivers@...ronome.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 bpf-next 01/17] bpf: verifier: offer more accurate helper function arg and return type


Jiong Wang writes:

<snip>

> At the moment we have single backend hook "bpf_jit_hardware_zext", once a
> backend enable it, verifier just insert zero extension for all identified
> alu32 and narrow loads.
>
> Given verifier analysis info is not pushed down to JIT back-ends, verifier
> needs more back-end info pushed up from back-ends. Do you think make sense
> to introduce another hook "bpf_jit_hardware_zext_narrow_load"

Maybe just keep the current "bpf_jit_hardware_zext", but let it return
int/enum instead of bool. Then verifier could know hardware ability through
the enum value?


> to at least
> prevent unnecessary zext inserted for narrowed loads for arches like
> PowerPC, SPARC?
>
> The hooks to control verifier zext insertion then becomes two:
>
>   bpf_jit_hardware_zext_alu32
>   bpf_jit_hardware_zext_narrow_load
>
>>> And that why I introduce these new argument types, without them, there
>>> could be more than 10% extra zext inserted on benchmarks like bpf_lxc.
>>
>> 10% extra ? so be it.
>> We're talking past each other here.
>> I agree with your optimization goal, but I think you're missing
>> the safety concerns I'm trying to explain.
>>> But for helper functions, they are done by native code which may not follow
>>> this convention. For example, on arm32, calling helper functions are just
>>> jump to and execute native code. And if the helper returns u32, it just set
>>> r0, no clearing of r1 which is the high 32-bit in the register pair
>>> modeling eBPF R0.
>>
>> it's arm32 bug then. All helpers _must_ return 64-bit back to bpf prog
>> and _must_ accept 64-bit from bpf prog.