netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 08/11] libbpf: support BTF dedup of split BTFs

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: <4EEF76DA-2E9F-4B09-BD31-817148CDC445@fb.com>
Date:   Tue, 3 Nov 2020 05:59:13 +0000
From:   Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
CC:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
        "daniel@...earbox.net" <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 08/11] libbpf: support BTF dedup of split BTFs



> On Nov 2, 2020, at 9:25 PM, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 6:49 PM Song Liu <songliubraving@...com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Oct 28, 2020, at 5:58 PM, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Add support for deduplication split BTFs. When deduplicating split BTF, base
>>> BTF is considered to be immutable and can't be modified or adjusted. 99% of
>>> BTF deduplication logic is left intact (module some type numbering adjustments).
>>> There are only two differences.
>>> 
>>> First, each type in base BTF gets hashed (expect VAR and DATASEC, of course,
>>> those are always considered to be self-canonical instances) and added into
>>> a table of canonical table candidates. Hashing is a shallow, fast operation,
>>> so mostly eliminates the overhead of having entire base BTF to be a part of
>>> BTF dedup.
>>> 
>>> Second difference is very critical and subtle. While deduplicating split BTF
>>> types, it is possible to discover that one of immutable base BTF BTF_KIND_FWD
>>> types can and should be resolved to a full STRUCT/UNION type from the split
>>> BTF part.  This is, obviously, can't happen because we can't modify the base
>>> BTF types anymore. So because of that, any type in split BTF that directly or
>>> indirectly references that newly-to-be-resolved FWD type can't be considered
>>> to be equivalent to the corresponding canonical types in base BTF, because
>>> that would result in a loss of type resolution information. So in such case,
>>> split BTF types will be deduplicated separately and will cause some
>>> duplication of type information, which is unavoidable.
>>> 
>>> With those two changes, the rest of the algorithm manages to deduplicate split
>>> BTF correctly, pointing all the duplicates to their canonical counter-parts in
>>> base BTF, but also is deduplicating whatever unique types are present in split
>>> BTF on their own.
>>> 
>>> Also, theoretically, split BTF after deduplication could end up with either
>>> empty type section or empty string section. This is handled by libbpf
>>> correctly in one of previous patches in the series.
>>> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
>> 
>> Acked-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
>> 
>> With some nits:
>> 
>>> ---
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>>> 
>>>      /* remap string offsets */
>>>      err = btf_for_each_str_off(d, strs_dedup_remap_str_off, d);
>>> @@ -3553,6 +3582,63 @@ static bool btf_compat_fnproto(struct btf_type *t1, struct btf_type *t2)
>>>      return true;
>>> }
>>> 
>> 
>> An overview comment about bpf_deup_prep() will be great.
> 
> ok
> 
>> 
>>> +static int btf_dedup_prep(struct btf_dedup *d)
>>> +{
>>> +     struct btf_type *t;
>>> +     int type_id;
>>> +     long h;
>>> +
>>> +     if (!d->btf->base_btf)
>>> +             return 0;
>>> +
>>> +     for (type_id = 1; type_id < d->btf->start_id; type_id++)
>>> +     {
>> 
>> Move "{" to previous line?
> 
> yep, my bad
> 
>> 
>>> +             t = btf_type_by_id(d->btf, type_id);
>>> +
>>> +             /* all base BTF types are self-canonical by definition */
>>> +             d->map[type_id] = type_id;
>>> +
>>> +             switch (btf_kind(t)) {
>>> +             case BTF_KIND_VAR:
>>> +             case BTF_KIND_DATASEC:
>>> +                     /* VAR and DATASEC are never hash/deduplicated */
>>> +                     continue;
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>>>      /* we are going to reuse hypot_map to store compaction remapping */
>>>      d->hypot_map[0] = 0;
>>> -     for (i = 1; i <= d->btf->nr_types; i++)
>>> -             d->hypot_map[i] = BTF_UNPROCESSED_ID;
>>> +     /* base BTF types are not renumbered */
>>> +     for (id = 1; id < d->btf->start_id; id++)
>>> +             d->hypot_map[id] = id;
>>> +     for (i = 0, id = d->btf->start_id; i < d->btf->nr_types; i++, id++)
>>> +             d->hypot_map[id] = BTF_UNPROCESSED_ID;
>> 
>> We don't really need i in the loop, shall we just do
>>        for (id = d->btf->start_id; id < d->btf->start_id + d->btf->nr_types; id++)
>> ?
>> 
> 
> I prefer the loop with i iterating over the count of types, it seems
> more "obviously correct". For simple loop like this I could do
> 
> for (i = 0; i < d->btf->nr_types; i++)
>    d->hypot_map[d->start_id + i] = ...;
> 
> But for the more complicated one below I found that maintaining id as
> part of the for loop control block is a bit cleaner. So I just stuck
> to the consistent pattern across all of them.

How about 

	for (i = 0; i < d->btf->nr_types; i++) {
		id = d->start_id + i;
		...
?

I would expect for loop with two loop variable to do some tricks, like two 
termination conditions, or another conditional id++ somewhere in the loop. 

Thanks,
Song