[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5836b464-290e-203f-00f2-fc6632c9f570@csgroup.eu>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2023 08:15:12 +0000
From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
To: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
"tong@...ragraf.org" <tong@...ragraf.org>,
"bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.or"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.or>,
"loongarch@...ts.linux.dev" <loongarch@...ts.linux.dev>,
"linux-mips@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>,
"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-s390@...r.kernel.org" <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
"sparclinux@...r.kernel.org" <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>
CC: Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Hou Tao <houtao1@...wei.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
"naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com>,
"mpe@...erman.id.au" <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Subject: Re: [bpf-next v2] bpf: drop deprecated bpf_jit_enable == 2
Le 06/01/2023 à 16:37, Daniel Borkmann a écrit :
> On 1/5/23 6:53 PM, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>> Le 05/01/2023 à 04:06, tong@...ragraf.org a écrit :
>>> From: Tonghao Zhang <tong@...ragraf.org>
>>>
>>> The x86_64 can't dump the valid insn in this way. A test BPF prog
>>> which include subprog:
>>>
>>> $ llvm-objdump -d subprog.o
>>> Disassembly of section .text:
>>> 0000000000000000 <subprog>:
>>> 0: 18 01 00 00 73 75 62 70 00 00 00 00 72 6f 67 00 r1
>>> = 29114459903653235 ll
>>> 2: 7b 1a f8 ff 00 00 00 00 *(u64 *)(r10 - 8) = r1
>>> 3: bf a1 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = r10
>>> 4: 07 01 00 00 f8 ff ff ff r1 += -8
>>> 5: b7 02 00 00 08 00 00 00 r2 = 8
>>> 6: 85 00 00 00 06 00 00 00 call 6
>>> 7: 95 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 exit
>>> Disassembly of section raw_tp/sys_enter:
>>> 0000000000000000 <entry>:
>>> 0: 85 10 00 00 ff ff ff ff call -1
>>> 1: b7 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r0 = 0
>>> 2: 95 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 exit
>>>
>>> kernel print message:
>>> [ 580.775387] flen=8 proglen=51 pass=3 image=ffffffffa000c20c
>>> from=kprobe-load pid=1643
>>> [ 580.777236] JIT code: 00000000: cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc
>>> cc cc cc cc cc
>>> [ 580.779037] JIT code: 00000010: cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc
>>> cc cc cc cc cc
>>> [ 580.780767] JIT code: 00000020: cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc
>>> cc cc cc cc cc
>>> [ 580.782568] JIT code: 00000030: cc cc cc
>>>
>>> $ bpf_jit_disasm
>>> 51 bytes emitted from JIT compiler (pass:3, flen:8)
>>> ffffffffa000c20c + <x>:
>>> 0: int3
>>> 1: int3
>>> 2: int3
>>> 3: int3
>>> 4: int3
>>> 5: int3
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Until bpf_jit_binary_pack_finalize is invoked, we copy rw_header to
>>> header
>>> and then image/insn is valid. BTW, we can use the "bpftool prog dump"
>>> JITed instructions.
>>
>> NACK.
>>
>> Because the feature is buggy on x86_64, you remove it for all
>> architectures ?
>>
>> On powerpc bpf_jit_enable == 2 works and is very usefull.
>>
>> Last time I tried to use bpftool on powerpc/32 it didn't work. I don't
>> remember the details, I think it was an issue with endianess. Maybe it
>> is fixed now, but it needs to be verified.
>>
>> So please, before removing a working and usefull feature, make sure
>> there is an alternative available to it for all architectures in all
>> configurations.
>>
>> Also, I don't think bpftool is usable to dump kernel BPF selftests.
>> That's vital when a selftest fails if you want to have a chance to
>> understand why it fails.
>
> If this is actively used by JIT developers and considered useful, I'd be
> ok to leave it for the time being. Overall goal is to reach feature parity
> among (at least major arch) JITs and not just have most functionality only
> available on x86-64 JIT. Could you however check what is not working with
> bpftool on powerpc/32? Perhaps it's not too much effort to just fix it,
> but details would be useful otherwise 'it didn't work' is too fuzzy.
Sure I will try to test bpftool again in the coming days.
Previous discussion about that subject is here:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-riscv/patch/20210415093250.3391257-1-Jianlin.Lv@arm.com/#24176847
>
> Also, with regards to the last statement that bpftool is not usable to
> dump kernel BPF selftests. Could you elaborate some more? I haven't used
> bpf_jit_enable == 2 in a long time and for debugging always relied on
> bpftool to dump xlated insns or JIT. Or do you mean by BPF selftests
> the test_bpf.ko module? Given it has a big batch with kernel-only tests,
> there I can see it's probably still useful.
Yes I mean test_bpf.ko
I used it as the test basis when I implemented eBPF for powerpc/32. And
not so long ago it helped decover and fix a bug, see
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/89d21e259a94f7d5582ec675aa445f5a79f347e4
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists