netdev - Re: [PATCH] bpf, x86: allow function arguments up to 12 for TRACING

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CADxym3YuGnoPpxUx92ZZqhi4z8t-hHQaKfah=9k6L-YiTg+Jjw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2023 21:10:51 +0800
From: Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@...il.com>
To: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>, dsahern@...nel.org, andrii@...nel.org, 
	davem@...emloft.net, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, 
	martin.lau@...ux.dev, song@...nel.org, yhs@...com, john.fastabend@...il.com, 
	kpsingh@...nel.org, sdf@...gle.com, haoluo@...gle.com, tglx@...utronix.de, 
	mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org, 
	hpa@...or.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Menglong Dong <imagedong@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf, x86: allow function arguments up to 12 for TRACING

On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 8:02 PM Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2023-05-31 at 17:03 +0800, Menglong Dong wrote:
> > On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 4:01 PM Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 12:44:23PM +0800, menglong8.dong@...il.com wrote:
> > > > From: Menglong Dong <imagedong@...cent.com>
> > > >
> > > > For now, the BPF program of type BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING can only be used
> > > > on the kernel functions whose arguments count less than 6. This is not
> > > > friendly at all, as too many functions have arguments count more than 6.
> > > >
> > > > Therefore, let's enhance it by increasing the function arguments count
> > > > allowed in arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline(), for now, only x86_64.
> > > >
> > > > For the case that we don't need to call origin function, which means
> > > > without BPF_TRAMP_F_CALL_ORIG, we need only copy the function arguments
> > > > that stored in the frame of the caller to current frame. The arguments
> > > > of arg6-argN are stored in "$rbp + 0x18", we need copy them to
> > > > "$rbp - regs_off + (6 * 8)".
> > > >
> > > > For the case with BPF_TRAMP_F_CALL_ORIG, we need prepare the arguments
> > > > in stack before call origin function, which means we need alloc extra
> > > > "8 * (arg_count - 6)" memory in the top of the stack. Note, there should
> > > > not be any data be pushed to the stack before call the origin function.
> > > > Then, we have to store rbx with 'mov' instead of 'push'.
> > > >
> > > > It works well for the FENTRY and FEXIT, I'm not sure if there are other
> > > > complicated cases.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong <imagedong@...cent.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 88 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> > >
> > > please add selftests for this.. I had to add one to be able to check
> > > the generated trampoline
> > >
> >
> > Okay!
> >
> > BTW, I failed to compile the latest selftests/bpf with
> > the following errors:
> >
> > progs/verifier_and.c:58:16: error: invalid operand for instruction
> >         asm volatile ("                                 \
> >
>
> These tests were moved to use inline assembly recently (2 month ago).
> Discussion at the time was whether to use \n\ or \ terminators at the
> end of each line. People opted for \ as easier to read.
> Replacing \ with \n\ and compiling this test using clang 14 shows
> more informative error message:
>
> $ make -j14 `pwd`/verifier_and.bpf.o
>   CLNG-BPF [test_maps] verifier_and.bpf.o
> progs/verifier_and.c:68:1: error: invalid operand for instruction
>         w1 %%= 2;                                       \n\
> ^
> <inline asm>:11:5: note: instantiated into assembly here
>         w1 %= 2;
>
> My guess is that clang 14 does not know how to handle operations on
> 32-bit sub-registers w[0-9].
>
> But using clang 14 I get some errors not related to inline assembly as well.
> Also, I recall that there were runtime issues with clang 14 and
> tests using enum64.
>
> All-in-all, you need newer version of clang for tests nowadays,
> sorry for inconvenience.

Thanks for your explanation! It works well after I
update my clang to a newer version.

Menglong Dong
>
> > The version of clang I used is:
> >
> > clang --version
> > Debian clang version 14.0.6
> > Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
> > Thread model: posix
> > InstalledDir: /usr/bin
> >
> > Does anyone know the reason?
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Menglong Dong
> >
> > > jirka
> > >
> > >
> >
>