Date:   Fri, 26 Nov 2021 18:50:10 +0200
From:   Maxim Mikityanskiy <maximmi@...dia.com>
To:     Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
CC:     Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>,
        "Lorenz Bauer" <lmb@...udflare.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        "Daniel Borkmann" <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        "Martin KaFai Lau" <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com>,
        "Florent Revest" <revest@...omium.org>,
        Joe Stringer <joe@...ium.io>, Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 09/10] bpf: Add a helper to issue timestamp
 cookies in XDP

On 2021-11-26 07:43, Yonghong Song wrote:
> 
> 
> On 11/25/21 6:34 AM, Maxim Mikityanskiy wrote:
>> On 2021-11-09 09:11, Yonghong Song wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/3/21 7:02 AM, Maxim Mikityanskiy wrote:
>>>> On 2021-11-03 04:10, Yonghong Song wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/1/21 4:14 AM, Maxim Mikityanskiy wrote:
>>>>>> On 2021-10-20 19:16, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>>>>>>> Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +bool cookie_init_timestamp_raw(struct tcphdr *th, __be32 
>>>>>>>>> *tsval, __be32 *tsecr)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm probably missing context, Is there something in this 
>>>>>>>> function that
>>>>>>>> means you can't implement it in BPF?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was about to reply with some other comments but upon closer 
>>>>>>> inspection
>>>>>>> I ended up at the same conclusion: this helper doesn't seem to be 
>>>>>>> needed
>>>>>>> at all?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After trying to put this code into BPF (replacing the underlying 
>>>>>> ktime_get_ns with ktime_get_mono_fast_ns), I experienced issues 
>>>>>> with passing the verifier.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In addition to comparing ptr to end, I had to add checks that 
>>>>>> compare ptr to data_end, because the verifier can't deduce that 
>>>>>> end <= data_end. More branches will add a certain slowdown (not 
>>>>>> measured).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A more serious issue is the overall program complexity. Even 
>>>>>> though the loop over the TCP options has an upper bound, and the 
>>>>>> pointer advances by at least one byte every iteration, I had to 
>>>>>> limit the total number of iterations artificially. The maximum 
>>>>>> number of iterations that makes the verifier happy is 10. With 
>>>>>> more iterations, I have the following error:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BPF program is too large. Processed 1000001 insn
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                         processed 1000001 insns (limit 1000000) 
>>>>>> max_states_per_insn 29 total_states 35489 peak_states 596 
>>>>>> mark_read 45
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I assume that BPF_COMPLEXITY_LIMIT_INSNS (1 million) is the 
>>>>>> accumulated amount of instructions that the verifier can process 
>>>>>> in all branches, is that right? It doesn't look realistic that my 
>>>>>> program can run 1 million instructions in a single run, but it 
>>>>>> might be that if you take all possible flows and add up the 
>>>>>> instructions from these flows, it will exceed 1 million.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The limitation of maximum 10 TCP options might be not enough, 
>>>>>> given that valid packets are permitted to include more than 10 
>>>>>> NOPs. An alternative of using bpf_load_hdr_opt and calling it 
>>>>>> three times doesn't look good either, because it will be about 
>>>>>> three times slower than going over the options once. So maybe 
>>>>>> having a helper for that is better than trying to fit it into BPF?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One more interesting fact is the time that it takes for the 
>>>>>> verifier to check my program. If it's limited to 10 iterations, it 
>>>>>> does it pretty fast, but if I try to increase the number to 11 
>>>>>> iterations, it takes several minutes for the verifier to reach 1 
>>>>>> million instructions and print the error then. I also tried 
>>>>>> grouping the NOPs in an inner loop to count only 10 real options, 
>>>>>> and the verifier has been running for a few hours without any 
>>>>>> response. Is it normal? 
>>>>>
>>>>> Maxim, this may expose a verifier bug. Do you have a reproducer I 
>>>>> can access? I would like to debug this to see what is the root 
>>>>> case. Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, I appreciate your help in debugging it. The reproducer is 
>>>> based on the modified XDP program from patch 10 in this series. 
>>>> You'll need to apply at least patches 6, 7, 8 from this series to 
>>>> get new BPF helpers needed for the XDP program (tell me if that's a 
>>>> problem, I can try to remove usage of new helpers, but it will 
>>>> affect the program length and may produce different results in the 
>>>> verifier).
>>>>
>>>> See the C code of the program that passes the verifier (compiled 
>>>> with clang version 12.0.0-1ubuntu1) in the bottom of this email. If 
>>>> you increase the loop boundary from 10 to at least 11 in 
>>>> cookie_init_timestamp_raw(), it fails the verifier after a few minutes. 
>>>
>>> I tried to reproduce with latest llvm (llvm-project repo),
>>> loop boundary 10 is okay and 11 exceeds the 1M complexity limit. For 10,
>>> the number of verified instructions is 563626 (more than 0.5M) so it is
>>> totally possible that one more iteration just blows past the limit.
>>
>> So, does it mean that the verifying complexity grows exponentially 
>> with increasing the number of loop iterations (options parsed)?
> 
> Depending on verification time pruning results, it is possible slightly 
> increase number of branches could result quite some (2x, 4x, etc.) of
> to-be-verified dynamic instructions.

Is it at least theoretically possible to make this coefficient below 2x? 
I.e. write a loop, so that adding another iteration will not double the 
number of verified instructions, but will have a smaller increase?

If that's not possible, then it looks like BPF can't have loops bigger 
than ~19 iterations (2^20 > 1M), and this function is not implementable 
in BPF.

>>
>> Is it a good enough reason to keep this code as a BPF helper, rather 
>> than trying to fit it into the BPF program?
> 
> Another option is to use global function, which is verified separately
> from the main bpf program.

Simply removing __always_inline didn't change anything. Do I need to 
make any other changes? Will it make sense to call a global function in 
a loop, i.e. will it increase chances to pass the verifier?

>>
>>>
>>>> If you apply this tiny change, it fails the verifier after about 3 
>>>> hours:
>>>>
> [...]

Powered by blists - more mailing lists