netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 4/6] bpf, libbpf: add bpf_tail_call

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: <52cd972d-c183-5d14-b790-4d3a66b8fda2@iogearbox.net>
Date:   Fri, 25 Sep 2020 17:52:13 +0200
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        john fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 4/6] bpf, libbpf: add bpf_tail_call_static helper
 for bpf programs

On 9/25/20 5:42 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 9/25/20 12:17 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> On 9/24/20 10:53 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 11:22 AM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Port of tail_call_static() helper function from Cilium's BPF code base [0]
>>>> to libbpf, so others can easily consume it as well. We've been using this
>>>> in production code for some time now. The main idea is that we guarantee
>>>> that the kernel's BPF infrastructure and JIT (here: x86_64) can patch the
>>>> JITed BPF insns with direct jumps instead of having to fall back to using
>>>> expensive retpolines. By using inline asm, we guarantee that the compiler
>>>> won't merge the call from different paths with potentially different
>>>> content of r2/r3.
>>>>
>>>> We're also using __throw_build_bug() macro in different places as a neat
>>>> trick to trigger compilation errors when compiler does not remove code at
>>>> compilation time. This works for the BPF backend as it does not implement
>>>> the __builtin_trap().
>>>>
>>>>    [0] https://github.com/cilium/cilium/commit/f5537c26020d5297b70936c6b7d03a1e412a1035
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
>>>> ---
>>>>   tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>   1 file changed, 32 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
>>>> index 1106777df00b..18b75a4c82e6 100644
>>>> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
>>>> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
>>>> @@ -53,6 +53,38 @@
>>>>          })
>>>>   #endif
>>>>
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * Misc useful helper macros
>>>> + */
>>>> +#ifndef __throw_build_bug
>>>> +# define __throw_build_bug()   __builtin_trap()
>>>> +#endif
>>>
>>> this will become part of libbpf stable API, do we want/need to expose
>>> it? If we want to expose it, then we should probably provide a better
>>> description.
>>>
>>> But also curious, how is it better than _Static_assert() (see
>>> test_cls_redirect.c), which also allows to provide a better error
>>> message?
>>
>> Need to get back to you whether that has same semantics. We use the __throw_build_bug()
>> also in __bpf_memzero() and friends [0] as a way to trigger a hard build bug if we hit
>> a default switch-case [0], so we detect unsupported sizes which are not covered by the
>> implementation yet. If _Static_assert (0, "foo") does the trick, we could also use that;
>> will check with our code base.
> 
> So _Static_assert() won't work here, for example consider:
> 
>    # cat f1.c
>    int main(void)
>    {
>      if (0)
>          _Static_assert(0, "foo");
>      return 0;
>    }
>    # clang -target bpf -Wall -O2 -c f1.c -o f1.o
>    f1.c:4:3: error: expected expression
>                  _Static_assert(0, "foo");
>                  ^
>    1 error generated.

.. aaand it looks like I need some more coffee. ;-) But result is the same after all:

   # clang -target bpf -Wall -O2 -c f1.c -o f1.o
   f1.c:4:3: error: static_assert failed "foo"
                 _Static_assert(0, "foo");
                 ^              ~
   1 error generated.

   # cat f1.c
   int main(void)
   {
	if (0) {
		_Static_assert(0, "foo");
	}
	return 0;
   }

> In order for it to work as required form the use-case, the _Static_assert() must not trigger
> here given the path is unreachable and will be optimized away. I'll add a comment to the
> __throw_build_bug() helper. Given libbpf we should probably also prefix with bpf_. If you see
> a better name that would fit, pls let me know.
> 
>>    [0] https://github.com/cilium/cilium/blob/master/bpf/include/bpf/builtins.h
> Thanks,
> Daniel