netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 5/5] selftests/bpf: add benchmark for uprobe vs. user

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: <CAEf4BzYUTvjAJ4uvYxBbbO7Vjh+K++F0HJe8mJ09RdhOeLeZGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 5 Aug 2020 10:56:30 -0700
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>,
        john fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        Daniel Xu <dlxu@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 5/5] selftests/bpf: add benchmark for uprobe vs. user_prog

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 10:45 AM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 10:27:28AM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 10:16 AM Alexei Starovoitov
> > <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 04:47:30AM +0000, Song Liu wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Being able to trigger BPF program on a different CPU could enable many
> > > > use cases and optimizations. The use case I am looking at is to access
> > > > perf_event and percpu maps on the target CPU. For example:
> > > >       0. trigger the program
> > > >       1. read perf_event on cpu x;
> > > >       2. (optional) check which process is running on cpu x;
> > > >       3. add perf_event value to percpu map(s) on cpu x.
> > >
> > > If the whole thing is about doing the above then I don't understand why new
> > > prog type is needed. Can prog_test_run support existing BPF_PROG_TYPE_KPROBE?
> > > "enable many use cases" sounds vague. I don't think folks reading
> > > the patches can guess those "use cases".
> > > "Testing existing kprobe bpf progs" would sound more convincing to me.
> >
> > Was just about to propose the same :) I wonder if generic test_run()
> > capability to trigger test programs of whatever supported type on a
> > specified CPU through IPI can be added. That way you can even use the
> > XDP program to do what Song seems to need.
> >
> > TRACEPOINTs might also be a good fit here, given it seems simpler to
> > let users specify custom tracepoint data for test_run(). Having the
> > ability to unit-test KPROBE and TRACEPOINT, however rudimentary, is
> > already a big win.
> >
> > > If the test_run framework can be extended to trigger kprobe with correct pt_regs.
> > > As part of it test_run would trigger on a given cpu with $ip pointing
> > > to some test fuction in test_run.c. For local test_run the stack trace
> > > would include bpf syscall chain. For IPI the stack trace would include
> > > the corresponding kernel pieces where top is our special test function.
> > > Sort of like pseudo kprobe where there is no actual kprobe logic,
> > > since kprobe prog doesn't care about mechanism. It needs correct
> > > pt_regs only as input context.
> > > The kprobe prog output (return value) has special meaning though,
> > > so may be kprobe prog type is not a good fit.
> >
> > It does? I don't remember returning 1 from KPROBE changing anything. I
> > thought it's only the special bpf_override_return() that can influence
> > the kernel function return result.
>
> See comment in trace_call_bpf().
> And logic to handle it in kprobe_perf_func() for kprobes.
> and in perf_trace_run_bpf_submit() for tracepoints.
> It's historical and Song actually discovered an issue with such behavior.
> I don't remember whether we've concluded on the solution.

Oh, thanks for pointers. Never realized there is more going on with
those. I guess return 1; is not advised then, as it causes extra
overhead.