Date:   Tue, 30 Nov 2021 22:39:40 -0800
From:   Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
To:     Maxim Mikityanskiy <maximmi@...dia.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 11/29/21 9:51 AM, Maxim Mikityanskiy wrote:
> On 2021-11-26 19:07, Yonghong Song wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/26/21 8:50 AM, Maxim Mikityanskiy wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> This is the worst case. As I mentioned pruning plays a huge role in 
>> verification. Effective pruning can add little increase of dynamic 
>> instructions say from 19 iterations to 20 iterations. But we have
>> to look at verifier log to find out whether pruning is less effective or
>> something else... Based on my experience, in most cases, pruning is
>> quite effective. But occasionally it is not... You can look at
>> verifier.c file to roughly understand how pruning work.
>>
>> Not sure whether in this case it is due to less effective pruning or 
>> inherently we just have to go through all these dynamic instructions 
>> for verification.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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?
>>
>> global function cannot be static function. You can try
>> either global function inside the loop or global function
>> containing the loop. It probably more effective to put loops
>> inside the global function. You have to do some experiments
>> to see which one is better.
> 
> Sorry for a probably noob question, but how can I pass data_end to a 
> global function? I'm getting this error:
> 
> Validating cookie_init_timestamp_raw() func#1...
> arg#4 reference type('UNKNOWN ') size cannot be determined: -22
> processed 0 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 0 total_states 0 
> peak_states 0 mark_read 0
> 
> When I removed data_end, I got another one:
> 
> ; opcode = ptr[0];
> 969: (71) r8 = *(u8 *)(r0 +0)
>   R0=mem(id=0,ref_obj_id=0,off=20,imm=0) 
> R1=mem(id=0,ref_obj_id=0,off=0,umin_value=4,umax_value=60,var_off=(0x0; 
> 0x3f),s32_min_value=0,s32_max_value=63,u32_max_value=63)
>   R2=invP0 R3=invP0 R4=mem_or_null(id=6,ref_obj_id=0,off=0,imm=0) 
> R5=invP0 R6=mem_or_null(id=5,ref_obj_id=0,off=0,imm=0) 
> R7=mem(id=0,ref_obj_id=0,off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0 fp
> -8=00000000 fp-16=invP15
> invalid access to memory, mem_size=20 off=20 size=1
> R0 min value is outside of the allowed memory range
> processed 20 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 0 total_states 2 
> peak_states 2 mark_read 1
> 
> It looks like pointers to the context aren't supported:
> 
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/bpf/msg34907.html 
> 
>  > test_global_func11 - check that CTX pointer cannot be passed
> 
> What is the standard way to pass packet data to a global function?

Since global function is separately verified, you need to pass the 'ctx' 
to the global function and do the 'data_end' check again in the global
function. This will incur some packet re-parsing overhead similar to
tail calls.

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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists