netdev - Re: [PATCH 13/19] bpf: Add support to link multi func tracing program

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: <YMDFUHoZg6bmrQ5q@krava>
Date:   Wed, 9 Jun 2021 15:42:40 +0200
From:   Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
        "Steven Rostedt (VMware)" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>, Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>,
        Viktor Malik <vmalik@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/19] bpf: Add support to link multi func tracing program

On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 10:08:32PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 4:07 PM Alexei Starovoitov
> <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 2:07 PM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 11:49:03AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 08:17:00PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 08:42:32AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, Jun 5, 2021 at 4:11 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Adding support to attach multiple functions to tracing program
> > > > > > > by using the link_create/link_update interface.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Adding multi_btf_ids/multi_btf_ids_cnt pair to link_create struct
> > > > > > > API, that define array of functions btf ids that will be attached
> > > > > > > to prog_fd.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The prog_fd needs to be multi prog tracing program (BPF_F_MULTI_FUNC).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The new link_create interface creates new BPF_LINK_TYPE_TRACING_MULTI
> > > > > > > link type, which creates separate bpf_trampoline and registers it
> > > > > > > as direct function for all specified btf ids.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The new bpf_trampoline is out of scope (bpf_trampoline_lookup) of
> > > > > > > standard trampolines, so all registered functions need to be free
> > > > > > > of direct functions, otherwise the link fails.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Overall the api makes sense to me.
> > > > > > The restriction of multi vs non-multi is too severe though.
> > > > > > The multi trampoline can serve normal fentry/fexit too.
> > > > >
> > > > > so multi trampoline gets called from all the registered functions,
> > > > > so there would need to be filter for specific ip before calling the
> > > > > standard program.. single cmp/jnz might not be that bad, I'll check
> > > >
> > > > You mean reusing the same multi trampoline for all IPs and regenerating
> > > > it with a bunch of cmp/jnz checks? There should be a better way to scale.
> > > > Maybe clone multi trampoline instead?
> > > > IPs[1-10] will point to multi.
> > > > IP[11] will point to a clone of multi that serves multi prog and
> > > > fentry/fexit progs specific for that IP.
> > >
> > > ok, so we'd clone multi trampoline if there's request to attach
> > > standard trampoline to some IP from multi trampoline
> > >
> > > .. and transform currently attached standard trampoline for IP
> > > into clone of multi trampoline, if there's request to create
> > > multi trampoline that covers that IP
> >
> > yep. For every IP==btf_id there will be only two possible trampolines.
> > Should be easy enough to track and transition between them.
> > The standard fentry/fexit will only get negligible slowdown from
> > going through multi.
> > multi+fexit and fmod_ret needs to be thought through as well.
> > That's why I thought that 'ip' at the end should simplify things.
> 
> Putting ip at the end has downsides. We might support >6 arguments
> eventually, at which point it will be super weird to have 6 args, ip,
> then the rest of arguments?..
> 
> Would it be too bad to put IP at -8 offset relative to ctx? That will
> also work for normal fentry/fexit, for which it's useful to have ip
> passed in as well, IMO. So no special casing for multi/non-multi, and
> it's backwards compatible.

I think Alexei is ok with that, as he said below

> 
> Ideally, I'd love it to be actually retrievable through a new BPF
> helper, something like bpf_caller_ip(ctx), but I'm not sure if we can
> implement this sanely, so I don't hold high hopes.

we could always store it in ctx-8 and have the helper to get it
from there.. that might also ease up handling that extra first
ip argument for multi-func programs in verifier

jirka

> 
> > Only multi will have access to it.
> > But we can store it first too. fentry/fexit will see ctx=r1 with +8 offset
> > and will have normal args in ctx. Like ip isn't even there.
> > While multi trampoline is always doing ip, arg1,arg2, .., arg6
> > and passes ctx = &ip into multi prog and ctx = &arg1 into fentry/fexit.
> > 'ret' for fexit is problematic though. hmm.
> > Maybe such clone multi trampoline for specific ip with 2 args will do:
> > ip, arg1, arg2, ret, 0, 0, 0, ret.
> > Then multi will have 6 args, though 3rd is actually ret.
> > Then fexit will have ret in the right place and multi prog will have
> > it as 7th arg.
>