Add support for transmitting packets using XDP in bpf_prog_run() #128

kernel-patches-bot · 2022-03-09T14:11:31Z

Pull request for series with
subject: Add support for transmitting packets using XDP in bpf_prog_run()
version: 11
url: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=621840

kernel-patches-bot · 2022-03-09T14:11:32Z

Master branch: 3399dd9
series: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=621840
version: 11

kernel-patches-bot · 2022-03-09T22:39:10Z

Master branch: de55c9a
series: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=621840
version: 11

kernel-patches-bot · 2022-03-09T22:45:11Z

At least one diff in series https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=621840 irrelevant now. Closing PR.

The BPF STX/LDX instruction uses offset relative to the FP to address stack space. Since the BPF_FP locates at the top of the frame, the offset is usually a negative number. However, arm64 str/ldr immediate instruction requires that offset be a positive number. Therefore, this patch tries to convert the offsets. The method is to find the negative offset furthest from the FP firstly. Then add it to the FP, calculate a bottom position, called FPB, and then adjust the offsets in other STR/LDX instructions relative to FPB. FPB is saved using the callee-saved register x27 of arm64 which is not used yet. Before adjusting the offset, the patch checks every instruction to ensure that the FP does not change in run-time. If the FP may change, no offset is adjusted. For example, for the following bpftrace command: bpftrace -e 'kprobe:do_sys_open { printf("opening: %s\n", str(arg1)); }' Without this patch, jited code(fragment): 0: bti c 4: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! 8: mov x29, sp c: stp x19, x20, [sp, #-16]! 10: stp x21, x22, [sp, #-16]! 14: stp x25, x26, [sp, #-16]! 18: mov x25, sp 1c: mov x26, #0x0 // #0 20: bti j 24: sub sp, sp, #0x90 28: add x19, x0, #0x0 2c: mov x0, #0x0 // #0 30: mov x10, #0xffffffffffffff78 // #-136 34: str x0, [x25, x10] 38: mov x10, #0xffffffffffffff80 // #-128 3c: str x0, [x25, x10] 40: mov x10, #0xffffffffffffff88 // #-120 44: str x0, [x25, x10] 48: mov x10, #0xffffffffffffff90 // #-112 4c: str x0, [x25, x10] 50: mov x10, #0xffffffffffffff98 // #-104 54: str x0, [x25, x10] 58: mov x10, #0xffffffffffffffa0 // #-96 5c: str x0, [x25, x10] 60: mov x10, #0xffffffffffffffa8 // #-88 64: str x0, [x25, x10] 68: mov x10, #0xffffffffffffffb0 // #-80 6c: str x0, [x25, x10] 70: mov x10, #0xffffffffffffffb8 // #-72 74: str x0, [x25, x10] 78: mov x10, #0xffffffffffffffc0 // #-64 7c: str x0, [x25, x10] 80: mov x10, #0xffffffffffffffc8 // #-56 84: str x0, [x25, x10] 88: mov x10, #0xffffffffffffffd0 // #-48 8c: str x0, [x25, x10] 90: mov x10, #0xffffffffffffffd8 // #-40 94: str x0, [x25, x10] 98: mov x10, #0xffffffffffffffe0 // #-32 9c: str x0, [x25, x10] a0: mov x10, #0xffffffffffffffe8 // #-24 a4: str x0, [x25, x10] a8: mov x10, #0xfffffffffffffff0 // #-16 ac: str x0, [x25, x10] b0: mov x10, #0xfffffffffffffff8 // #-8 b4: str x0, [x25, x10] b8: mov x10, #0x8 // #8 bc: ldr x2, [x19, x10] [...] With this patch, jited code(fragment): 0: bti c 4: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! 8: mov x29, sp c: stp x19, x20, [sp, #-16]! 10: stp x21, x22, [sp, #-16]! 14: stp x25, x26, [sp, #-16]! 18: stp x27, x28, [sp, #-16]! 1c: mov x25, sp 20: sub x27, x25, #0x88 24: mov x26, #0x0 // #0 28: bti j 2c: sub sp, sp, #0x90 30: add x19, x0, #0x0 34: mov x0, #0x0 // #0 38: str x0, [x27] 3c: str x0, [x27, #8] 40: str x0, [x27, #16] 44: str x0, [x27, #24] 48: str x0, [x27, #32] 4c: str x0, [x27, #40] 50: str x0, [x27, #48] 54: str x0, [x27, #56] 58: str x0, [x27, #64] 5c: str x0, [x27, #72] 60: str x0, [x27, #80] 64: str x0, [x27, #88] 68: str x0, [x27, #96] 6c: str x0, [x27, #104] 70: str x0, [x27, #112] 74: str x0, [x27, #120] 78: str x0, [x27, #128] 7c: ldr x2, [x19, #8] [...] Signed-off-by: Xu Kuohai <[email protected]>

The BPF STX/LDX instruction uses offset relative to the FP to address stack space. Since the BPF_FP locates at the top of the frame, the offset is usually a negative number. However, arm64 str/ldr immediate instruction requires that offset be a positive number. Therefore, this patch tries to convert the offsets. The method is to find the negative offset furthest from the FP firstly. Then add it to the FP, calculate a bottom position, called FPB, and then adjust the offsets in other STR/LDX instructions relative to FPB. FPB is saved using the callee-saved register x27 of arm64 which is not used yet. Before adjusting the offset, the patch checks every instruction to ensure that the FP does not change in run-time. If the FP may change, no offset is adjusted. For example, for the following bpftrace command: bpftrace -e 'kprobe:do_sys_open { printf("opening: %s\n", str(arg1)); }' Without this patch, jited code(fragment): 0: bti c 4: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! 8: mov x29, sp c: stp x19, x20, [sp, #-16]! 10: stp x21, x22, [sp, #-16]! 14: stp x25, x26, [sp, #-16]! 18: mov x25, sp 1c: mov x26, #0x0 // #0 20: bti j 24: sub sp, sp, #0x90 28: add x19, x0, #0x0 2c: mov x0, #0x0 // #0 30: mov x10, #0xffffffffffffff78 // #-136 34: str x0, [x25, x10] 38: mov x10, #0xffffffffffffff80 // #-128 3c: str x0, [x25, x10] 40: mov x10, #0xffffffffffffff88 // #-120 44: str x0, [x25, x10] 48: mov x10, #0xffffffffffffff90 // #-112 4c: str x0, [x25, x10] 50: mov x10, #0xffffffffffffff98 // #-104 54: str x0, [x25, x10] 58: mov x10, #0xffffffffffffffa0 // #-96 5c: str x0, [x25, x10] 60: mov x10, #0xffffffffffffffa8 // #-88 64: str x0, [x25, x10] 68: mov x10, #0xffffffffffffffb0 // #-80 6c: str x0, [x25, x10] 70: mov x10, #0xffffffffffffffb8 // #-72 74: str x0, [x25, x10] 78: mov x10, #0xffffffffffffffc0 // #-64 7c: str x0, [x25, x10] 80: mov x10, #0xffffffffffffffc8 // #-56 84: str x0, [x25, x10] 88: mov x10, #0xffffffffffffffd0 // #-48 8c: str x0, [x25, x10] 90: mov x10, #0xffffffffffffffd8 // #-40 94: str x0, [x25, x10] 98: mov x10, #0xffffffffffffffe0 // #-32 9c: str x0, [x25, x10] a0: mov x10, #0xffffffffffffffe8 // #-24 a4: str x0, [x25, x10] a8: mov x10, #0xfffffffffffffff0 // #-16 ac: str x0, [x25, x10] b0: mov x10, #0xfffffffffffffff8 // #-8 b4: str x0, [x25, x10] b8: mov x10, #0x8 // #8 bc: ldr x2, [x19, x10] [...] With this patch, jited code(fragment): 0: bti c 4: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! 8: mov x29, sp c: stp x19, x20, [sp, #-16]! 10: stp x21, x22, [sp, #-16]! 14: stp x25, x26, [sp, #-16]! 18: stp x27, x28, [sp, #-16]! 1c: mov x25, sp 20: sub x27, x25, #0x88 24: mov x26, #0x0 // #0 28: bti j 2c: sub sp, sp, #0x90 30: add x19, x0, #0x0 34: mov x0, #0x0 // #0 38: str x0, [x27] 3c: str x0, [x27, #8] 40: str x0, [x27, #16] 44: str x0, [x27, #24] 48: str x0, [x27, #32] 4c: str x0, [x27, #40] 50: str x0, [x27, #48] 54: str x0, [x27, #56] 58: str x0, [x27, #64] 5c: str x0, [x27, #72] 60: str x0, [x27, #80] 64: str x0, [x27, #88] 68: str x0, [x27, #96] 6c: str x0, [x27, #104] 70: str x0, [x27, #112] 74: str x0, [x27, #120] 78: str x0, [x27, #128] 7c: ldr x2, [x19, #8] [...] Signed-off-by: Xu Kuohai <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]

Like commit 1cf3bfc ("bpf: Support 64-bit pointers to kfuncs") for s390x, add support for 64-bit pointers to kfuncs for LoongArch. Since the infrastructure is already implemented in BPF core, the only thing need to be done is to override bpf_jit_supports_far_kfunc_call(). Before this change, several test_verifier tests failed: # ./test_verifier | grep # | grep FAIL #119/p calls: invalid kfunc call: ptr_to_mem to struct with non-scalar FAIL #120/p calls: invalid kfunc call: ptr_to_mem to struct with nesting depth > 4 FAIL #121/p calls: invalid kfunc call: ptr_to_mem to struct with FAM FAIL #122/p calls: invalid kfunc call: reg->type != PTR_TO_CTX FAIL #123/p calls: invalid kfunc call: void * not allowed in func proto without mem size arg FAIL #124/p calls: trigger reg2btf_ids[reg->type] for reg->type > __BPF_REG_TYPE_MAX FAIL #125/p calls: invalid kfunc call: reg->off must be zero when passed to release kfunc FAIL #126/p calls: invalid kfunc call: don't match first member type when passed to release kfunc FAIL #127/p calls: invalid kfunc call: PTR_TO_BTF_ID with negative offset FAIL #128/p calls: invalid kfunc call: PTR_TO_BTF_ID with variable offset FAIL #129/p calls: invalid kfunc call: referenced arg needs refcounted PTR_TO_BTF_ID FAIL #130/p calls: valid kfunc call: referenced arg needs refcounted PTR_TO_BTF_ID FAIL #486/p map_kptr: ref: reference state created and released on xchg FAIL This is because the kfuncs in the loaded module are far away from __bpf_call_base: ffff800002009440 t bpf_kfunc_call_test_fail1 [bpf_testmod] 9000000002e128d8 T __bpf_call_base The offset relative to __bpf_call_base does NOT fit in s32, which breaks the assumption in BPF core. Enable bpf_jit_supports_far_kfunc_call() lifts this limit. Note that to reproduce the above result, tools/testing/selftests/bpf/config should be applied, and run the test with JIT enabled, unpriv BPF enabled. With this change, the test_verifier tests now all passed: # ./test_verifier ... Summary: 777 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED Tested-by: Tiezhu Yang <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Hengqi Chen <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Huacai Chen <[email protected]>

copy_fd_bitmaps(new, old, count) is expected to copy the first count/BITS_PER_LONG bits from old->full_fds_bits[] and fill the rest with zeroes. What it does is copying enough words (BITS_TO_LONGS(count/BITS_PER_LONG)), then memsets the rest. That works fine, *if* all bits past the cutoff point are clear. Otherwise we are risking garbage from the last word we'd copied. For most of the callers that is true - expand_fdtable() has count equal to old->max_fds, so there's no open descriptors past count, let alone fully occupied words in ->open_fds[], which is what bits in ->full_fds_bits[] correspond to. The other caller (dup_fd()) passes sane_fdtable_size(old_fdt, max_fds), which is the smallest multiple of BITS_PER_LONG that covers all opened descriptors below max_fds. In the common case (copying on fork()) max_fds is ~0U, so all opened descriptors will be below it and we are fine, by the same reasons why the call in expand_fdtable() is safe. Unfortunately, there is a case where max_fds is less than that and where we might, indeed, end up with junk in ->full_fds_bits[] - close_range(from, to, CLOSE_RANGE_UNSHARE) with * descriptor table being currently shared * 'to' being above the current capacity of descriptor table * 'from' being just under some chunk of opened descriptors. In that case we end up with observably wrong behaviour - e.g. spawn a child with CLONE_FILES, get all descriptors in range 0..127 open, then close_range(64, ~0U, CLOSE_RANGE_UNSHARE) and watch dup(0) ending up with descriptor #128, despite #64 being observably not open. The minimally invasive fix would be to deal with that in dup_fd(). If this proves to add measurable overhead, we can go that way, but let's try to fix copy_fd_bitmaps() first. * new helper: bitmap_copy_and_expand(to, from, bits_to_copy, size). * make copy_fd_bitmaps() take the bitmap size in words, rather than bits; it's 'count' argument is always a multiple of BITS_PER_LONG, so we are not losing any information, and that way we can use the same helper for all three bitmaps - compiler will see that count is a multiple of BITS_PER_LONG for the large ones, so it'll generate plain memcpy()+memset(). Reproducer added to tools/testing/selftests/core/close_range_test.c Cc: [email protected] Signed-off-by: Al Viro <[email protected]>

kernel-patches-bot added bpf-next new V11 labels Mar 9, 2022

kernel-patches-bot force-pushed the series/588861=>bpf-next branch from 7fed7a5 to 0727165 Compare March 9, 2022 14:11

adding ci files

17364f5

kernel-patches-bot force-pushed the series/588861=>bpf-next branch from 0727165 to 17364f5 Compare March 9, 2022 22:39

kernel-patches-bot added accepted and removed new labels Mar 9, 2022

kernel-patches-bot closed this Mar 9, 2022

kernel-patches-bot deleted the series/588861=>bpf-next branch March 9, 2022 22:45

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Add support for transmitting packets using XDP in bpf_prog_run() #128

Add support for transmitting packets using XDP in bpf_prog_run() #128

kernel-patches-bot commented Mar 9, 2022

kernel-patches-bot commented Mar 9, 2022

kernel-patches-bot commented Mar 9, 2022

kernel-patches-bot commented Mar 9, 2022

Add support for transmitting packets using XDP in bpf_prog_run() #128

Add support for transmitting packets using XDP in bpf_prog_run() #128

Conversation

kernel-patches-bot commented Mar 9, 2022

kernel-patches-bot commented Mar 9, 2022

kernel-patches-bot commented Mar 9, 2022

kernel-patches-bot commented Mar 9, 2022