Date:   Mon, 01 Feb 2021 17:00:03 +0100
From:   "Eelco Chaudron" <echaudro@...hat.com>
To:     "Daniel Borkmann" <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        "Alexei Starovoitov" <ast@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Maciej Fijalkowski" <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>,
        "Lorenzo Bianconi" <lorenzo@...nel.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, brouer@...hat.com, bjorn@...nel.org,
        toke@...hat.com, john.fastabend@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 bpf-next 13/14] bpf: add new frame_length field to the
 XDP ctx



On 20 Jan 2021, at 14:20, Eelco Chaudron wrote:

> On 18 Jan 2021, at 17:48, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 05:36:23PM +0100, Eelco Chaudron wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 16 Dec 2020, at 15:08, Eelco Chaudron wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 15 Dec 2020, at 19:06, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 02:28:39PM +0100, Eelco Chaudron wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9 Dec 2020, at 13:07, Eelco Chaudron wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9 Dec 2020, at 12:10, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <SNIP>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>> +		ctx_reg = (si->src_reg == si->dst_reg) ? scratch_reg - 1 
>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>> si->src_reg;
>>>>>>>>>>> +		while (dst_reg == ctx_reg || scratch_reg == ctx_reg)
>>>>>>>>>>> +			ctx_reg--;
>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>> +		/* Save scratch registers */
>>>>>>>>>>> +		if (ctx_reg != si->src_reg) {
>>>>>>>>>>> +			*insn++ = BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, si->src_reg, ctx_reg,
>>>>>>>>>>> +					      offsetof(struct xdp_buff,
>>>>>>>>>>> +						       tmp_reg[1]));
>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>> +			*insn++ = BPF_MOV64_REG(ctx_reg, si->src_reg);
>>>>>>>>>>> +		}
>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>> +		*insn++ = BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, ctx_reg, scratch_reg,
>>>>>>>>>>> +				      offsetof(struct xdp_buff, tmp_reg[0]));
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why don't you push regs to stack, use it and then pop it
>>>>>>>>>> back? That way
>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>> suppose you could avoid polluting xdp_buff with tmp_reg[2].
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is no “real” stack in eBPF, only a read-only frame
>>>>>>>>> pointer, and as we
>>>>>>>>> are replacing a single instruction, we have no info on what we
>>>>>>>>> can use as
>>>>>>>>> scratch space.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Uhm, what? You use R10 for stack operations. Verifier tracks 
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> stack
>>>>>>>> depth used by programs and then it is passed down to JIT so 
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> native
>>>>>>>> asm will create a properly sized stack frame.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From the top of my head I would let know
>>>>>>>> xdp_convert_ctx_access of a
>>>>>>>> current stack depth and use it for R10 stores, so your
>>>>>>>> scratch space
>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>> be R10 + (stack depth + 8), R10 + (stack_depth + 16).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Other instances do exactly the same, i.e. put some scratch
>>>>>>> registers in
>>>>>>> the underlying data structure, so I reused this approach. From 
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> current information in the callback, I was not able to
>>>>>>> determine the
>>>>>>> current stack_depth. With "real" stack above, I meant having
>>>>>>> a pop/push
>>>>>>> like instruction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I do not know the verifier code well enough, but are you
>>>>>>> suggesting I
>>>>>>> can get the current stack_depth from the verifier in the
>>>>>>> xdp_convert_ctx_access() callback? If so any pointers?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maciej any feedback on the above, i.e. getting the stack_depth in
>>>>>> xdp_convert_ctx_access()?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry. I'll try to get my head around it. If i recall correctly 
>>>>> stack
>>>>> depth is tracked per subprogram whereas convert_ctx_accesses is
>>>>> iterating
>>>>> through *all* insns (so a prog that is not chunked onto subprogs),
>>>>> but
>>>>> maybe we could dig up the subprog based on insn idx.
>>>>>
>>>>> But at first, you mentioned that you took the approach from other
>>>>> instances, can you point me to them?
>>>>
>>>> Quick search found the following two (sure there is one more with 
>>>> two
>>>> regs):
>>>>
>>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.10.1/source/kernel/bpf/cgroup.c#L1718
>>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.10.1/source/net/core/filter.c#L8977
>>>>
>>>>> I'd also like to hear from Daniel/Alexei/John and others their
>>>>> thoughts.
>>>>
>>>> Please keep me in the loop…
>>>
>>> Any thoughts/update on the above so I can move this patchset 
>>> forward?
>>
>> Cc: John, Jesper, Bjorn
>>
>> I didn't spend time thinking about it, but I still am against 
>> xdp_buff
>> extension for the purpose that code within this patch has.
>
> Yes I agree, if we can not find an easy way to store the scratch 
> registers on the stack, I’ll rework this patch to just store the 
> total frame length in xdp_buff, as it will be less and still fit in 
> one cache line.
>
>> Daniel/Alexei/John/Jesper/Bjorn,

Daniel/Alexei and input on how to easily allocate two scratch registers 
on the stack from a function like xdp_convert_ctx_access() through the 
verifier state? See above for some more details.

If you are not the right persons, who might be the verifier guru to ask?

>> any objections for not having the scratch registers but rather use 
>> the
>> stack and update the stack depth to calculate the frame length?
>>
>> This seems not trivial so I really would like to have an input from 
>> better
>> BPF developers than me :)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists