netlink: export policy on validation failures #182
Closed
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Master branch: 67ed375 Pull request is NOT updated. Failed to apply https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/bpf/list/?series=360463 conflict: |
kernel-patches-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 23, 2021
Fix BPF_CORE_READ_BITFIELD() macro used for reading CO-RE-relocatable bitfields. Missing breaks in a switch caused 8-byte reads always. This can confuse libbpf because it does strict checks that memory load size corresponds to the original size of the field, which in this case quite often would be wrong. After fixing that, we run into another problem, which quite subtle, so worth documenting here. The issue is in Clang optimization and CO-RE relocation interactions. Without that asm volatile construct (also known as barrier_var()), Clang will re-order BYTE_OFFSET and BYTE_SIZE relocations and will apply BYTE_OFFSET 4 times for each switch case arm. This will result in the same error from libbpf about mismatch of memory load size and original field size. I.e., if we were reading u32, we'd still have *(u8 *), *(u16 *), *(u32 *), and *(u64 *) memory loads, three of which will fail. Using barrier_var() forces Clang to apply BYTE_OFFSET relocation first (and once) to calculate p, after which value of p is used without relocation in each of switch case arms, doing appropiately-sized memory load. Here's the list of relevant relocations and pieces of generated BPF code before and after this patch for test_core_reloc_bitfields_direct selftests. BEFORE ===== #45: core_reloc: insn #160 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_sz --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #46: core_reloc: insn #167 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #47: core_reloc: insn #174 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #48: core_reloc: insn #178 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #49: core_reloc: insn #182 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 157: 18 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 ll 159: 7b 12 20 01 00 00 00 00 *(u64 *)(r2 + 288) = r1 160: b7 02 00 00 04 00 00 00 r2 = 4 ; BYTE_SIZE relocation here ^^^ 161: 66 02 07 00 03 00 00 00 if w2 s> 3 goto +7 <LBB0_63> 162: 16 02 0d 00 01 00 00 00 if w2 == 1 goto +13 <LBB0_65> 163: 16 02 01 00 02 00 00 00 if w2 == 2 goto +1 <LBB0_66> 164: 05 00 12 00 00 00 00 00 goto +18 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000528 <LBB0_66>: 165: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 167: 69 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u16 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ WRONG size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 168: 05 00 0e 00 00 00 00 00 goto +14 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000548 <LBB0_63>: 169: 16 02 0a 00 04 00 00 00 if w2 == 4 goto +10 <LBB0_67> 170: 16 02 01 00 08 00 00 00 if w2 == 8 goto +1 <LBB0_68> 171: 05 00 0b 00 00 00 00 00 goto +11 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000560 <LBB0_68>: 172: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 174: 79 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ WRONG size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 175: 05 00 07 00 00 00 00 00 goto +7 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000580 <LBB0_65>: 176: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 178: 71 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u8 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ WRONG size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 179: 05 00 03 00 00 00 00 00 goto +3 <LBB0_69> 00000000000005a0 <LBB0_67>: 180: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 182: 61 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ RIGHT size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 00000000000005b8 <LBB0_69>: 183: 67 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 <<= 32 184: b7 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 185: 16 02 02 00 00 00 00 00 if w2 == 0 goto +2 <LBB0_71> 186: c7 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 s>>= 32 187: 05 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 goto +1 <LBB0_72> 00000000000005e0 <LBB0_71>: 188: 77 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 >>= 32 AFTER ===== #30: core_reloc: insn #132 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #31: core_reloc: insn #134 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_sz --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 129: 18 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 ll 131: 7b 12 20 01 00 00 00 00 *(u64 *)(r2 + 288) = r1 132: b7 01 00 00 08 00 00 00 r1 = 8 ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here ^^^ ; no size check for non-memory dereferencing instructions 133: 0f 12 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 += r1 134: b7 03 00 00 04 00 00 00 r3 = 4 ; BYTE_SIZE relocation here ^^^ 135: 66 03 05 00 03 00 00 00 if w3 s> 3 goto +5 <LBB0_63> 136: 16 03 09 00 01 00 00 00 if w3 == 1 goto +9 <LBB0_65> 137: 16 03 01 00 02 00 00 00 if w3 == 2 goto +1 <LBB0_66> 138: 05 00 0a 00 00 00 00 00 goto +10 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000458 <LBB0_66>: 139: 69 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u16 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 140: 05 00 08 00 00 00 00 00 goto +8 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000468 <LBB0_63>: 141: 16 03 06 00 04 00 00 00 if w3 == 4 goto +6 <LBB0_67> 142: 16 03 01 00 08 00 00 00 if w3 == 8 goto +1 <LBB0_68> 143: 05 00 05 00 00 00 00 00 goto +5 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000480 <LBB0_68>: 144: 79 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u64 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 145: 05 00 03 00 00 00 00 00 goto +3 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000490 <LBB0_65>: 146: 71 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u8 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 147: 05 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 goto +1 <LBB0_69> 00000000000004a0 <LBB0_67>: 148: 61 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u32 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 00000000000004a8 <LBB0_69>: 149: 67 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 <<= 32 150: b7 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 151: 16 02 02 00 00 00 00 00 if w2 == 0 goto +2 <LBB0_71> 152: c7 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 s>>= 32 153: 05 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 goto +1 <LBB0_72> 00000000000004d0 <LBB0_71>: 154: 77 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 >>= 323 Fixes: ee26dad ("libbpf: Add support for relocatable bitfields") Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 24, 2021
Fix BPF_CORE_READ_BITFIELD() macro used for reading CO-RE-relocatable bitfields. Missing breaks in a switch caused 8-byte reads always. This can confuse libbpf because it does strict checks that memory load size corresponds to the original size of the field, which in this case quite often would be wrong. After fixing that, we run into another problem, which quite subtle, so worth documenting here. The issue is in Clang optimization and CO-RE relocation interactions. Without that asm volatile construct (also known as barrier_var()), Clang will re-order BYTE_OFFSET and BYTE_SIZE relocations and will apply BYTE_OFFSET 4 times for each switch case arm. This will result in the same error from libbpf about mismatch of memory load size and original field size. I.e., if we were reading u32, we'd still have *(u8 *), *(u16 *), *(u32 *), and *(u64 *) memory loads, three of which will fail. Using barrier_var() forces Clang to apply BYTE_OFFSET relocation first (and once) to calculate p, after which value of p is used without relocation in each of switch case arms, doing appropiately-sized memory load. Here's the list of relevant relocations and pieces of generated BPF code before and after this patch for test_core_reloc_bitfields_direct selftests. BEFORE ===== #45: core_reloc: insn #160 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_sz --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #46: core_reloc: insn #167 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #47: core_reloc: insn #174 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #48: core_reloc: insn #178 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #49: core_reloc: insn #182 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 157: 18 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 ll 159: 7b 12 20 01 00 00 00 00 *(u64 *)(r2 + 288) = r1 160: b7 02 00 00 04 00 00 00 r2 = 4 ; BYTE_SIZE relocation here ^^^ 161: 66 02 07 00 03 00 00 00 if w2 s> 3 goto +7 <LBB0_63> 162: 16 02 0d 00 01 00 00 00 if w2 == 1 goto +13 <LBB0_65> 163: 16 02 01 00 02 00 00 00 if w2 == 2 goto +1 <LBB0_66> 164: 05 00 12 00 00 00 00 00 goto +18 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000528 <LBB0_66>: 165: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 167: 69 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u16 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ WRONG size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 168: 05 00 0e 00 00 00 00 00 goto +14 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000548 <LBB0_63>: 169: 16 02 0a 00 04 00 00 00 if w2 == 4 goto +10 <LBB0_67> 170: 16 02 01 00 08 00 00 00 if w2 == 8 goto +1 <LBB0_68> 171: 05 00 0b 00 00 00 00 00 goto +11 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000560 <LBB0_68>: 172: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 174: 79 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ WRONG size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 175: 05 00 07 00 00 00 00 00 goto +7 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000580 <LBB0_65>: 176: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 178: 71 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u8 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ WRONG size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 179: 05 00 03 00 00 00 00 00 goto +3 <LBB0_69> 00000000000005a0 <LBB0_67>: 180: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 182: 61 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ RIGHT size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 00000000000005b8 <LBB0_69>: 183: 67 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 <<= 32 184: b7 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 185: 16 02 02 00 00 00 00 00 if w2 == 0 goto +2 <LBB0_71> 186: c7 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 s>>= 32 187: 05 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 goto +1 <LBB0_72> 00000000000005e0 <LBB0_71>: 188: 77 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 >>= 32 AFTER ===== #30: core_reloc: insn #132 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #31: core_reloc: insn #134 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_sz --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 129: 18 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 ll 131: 7b 12 20 01 00 00 00 00 *(u64 *)(r2 + 288) = r1 132: b7 01 00 00 08 00 00 00 r1 = 8 ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here ^^^ ; no size check for non-memory dereferencing instructions 133: 0f 12 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 += r1 134: b7 03 00 00 04 00 00 00 r3 = 4 ; BYTE_SIZE relocation here ^^^ 135: 66 03 05 00 03 00 00 00 if w3 s> 3 goto +5 <LBB0_63> 136: 16 03 09 00 01 00 00 00 if w3 == 1 goto +9 <LBB0_65> 137: 16 03 01 00 02 00 00 00 if w3 == 2 goto +1 <LBB0_66> 138: 05 00 0a 00 00 00 00 00 goto +10 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000458 <LBB0_66>: 139: 69 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u16 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 140: 05 00 08 00 00 00 00 00 goto +8 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000468 <LBB0_63>: 141: 16 03 06 00 04 00 00 00 if w3 == 4 goto +6 <LBB0_67> 142: 16 03 01 00 08 00 00 00 if w3 == 8 goto +1 <LBB0_68> 143: 05 00 05 00 00 00 00 00 goto +5 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000480 <LBB0_68>: 144: 79 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u64 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 145: 05 00 03 00 00 00 00 00 goto +3 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000490 <LBB0_65>: 146: 71 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u8 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 147: 05 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 goto +1 <LBB0_69> 00000000000004a0 <LBB0_67>: 148: 61 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u32 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 00000000000004a8 <LBB0_69>: 149: 67 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 <<= 32 150: b7 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 151: 16 02 02 00 00 00 00 00 if w2 == 0 goto +2 <LBB0_71> 152: c7 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 s>>= 32 153: 05 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 goto +1 <LBB0_72> 00000000000004d0 <LBB0_71>: 154: 77 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 >>= 323 Fixes: ee26dad ("libbpf: Add support for relocatable bitfields") Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 26, 2021
Fix BPF_CORE_READ_BITFIELD() macro used for reading CO-RE-relocatable bitfields. Missing breaks in a switch caused 8-byte reads always. This can confuse libbpf because it does strict checks that memory load size corresponds to the original size of the field, which in this case quite often would be wrong. After fixing that, we run into another problem, which quite subtle, so worth documenting here. The issue is in Clang optimization and CO-RE relocation interactions. Without that asm volatile construct (also known as barrier_var()), Clang will re-order BYTE_OFFSET and BYTE_SIZE relocations and will apply BYTE_OFFSET 4 times for each switch case arm. This will result in the same error from libbpf about mismatch of memory load size and original field size. I.e., if we were reading u32, we'd still have *(u8 *), *(u16 *), *(u32 *), and *(u64 *) memory loads, three of which will fail. Using barrier_var() forces Clang to apply BYTE_OFFSET relocation first (and once) to calculate p, after which value of p is used without relocation in each of switch case arms, doing appropiately-sized memory load. Here's the list of relevant relocations and pieces of generated BPF code before and after this patch for test_core_reloc_bitfields_direct selftests. BEFORE ===== #45: core_reloc: insn #160 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_sz --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #46: core_reloc: insn #167 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #47: core_reloc: insn #174 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #48: core_reloc: insn #178 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #49: core_reloc: insn #182 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 157: 18 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 ll 159: 7b 12 20 01 00 00 00 00 *(u64 *)(r2 + 288) = r1 160: b7 02 00 00 04 00 00 00 r2 = 4 ; BYTE_SIZE relocation here ^^^ 161: 66 02 07 00 03 00 00 00 if w2 s> 3 goto +7 <LBB0_63> 162: 16 02 0d 00 01 00 00 00 if w2 == 1 goto +13 <LBB0_65> 163: 16 02 01 00 02 00 00 00 if w2 == 2 goto +1 <LBB0_66> 164: 05 00 12 00 00 00 00 00 goto +18 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000528 <LBB0_66>: 165: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 167: 69 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u16 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ WRONG size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 168: 05 00 0e 00 00 00 00 00 goto +14 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000548 <LBB0_63>: 169: 16 02 0a 00 04 00 00 00 if w2 == 4 goto +10 <LBB0_67> 170: 16 02 01 00 08 00 00 00 if w2 == 8 goto +1 <LBB0_68> 171: 05 00 0b 00 00 00 00 00 goto +11 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000560 <LBB0_68>: 172: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 174: 79 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ WRONG size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 175: 05 00 07 00 00 00 00 00 goto +7 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000580 <LBB0_65>: 176: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 178: 71 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u8 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ WRONG size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 179: 05 00 03 00 00 00 00 00 goto +3 <LBB0_69> 00000000000005a0 <LBB0_67>: 180: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 182: 61 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ RIGHT size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 00000000000005b8 <LBB0_69>: 183: 67 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 <<= 32 184: b7 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 185: 16 02 02 00 00 00 00 00 if w2 == 0 goto +2 <LBB0_71> 186: c7 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 s>>= 32 187: 05 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 goto +1 <LBB0_72> 00000000000005e0 <LBB0_71>: 188: 77 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 >>= 32 AFTER ===== #30: core_reloc: insn #132 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #31: core_reloc: insn #134 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_sz --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 129: 18 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 ll 131: 7b 12 20 01 00 00 00 00 *(u64 *)(r2 + 288) = r1 132: b7 01 00 00 08 00 00 00 r1 = 8 ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here ^^^ ; no size check for non-memory dereferencing instructions 133: 0f 12 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 += r1 134: b7 03 00 00 04 00 00 00 r3 = 4 ; BYTE_SIZE relocation here ^^^ 135: 66 03 05 00 03 00 00 00 if w3 s> 3 goto +5 <LBB0_63> 136: 16 03 09 00 01 00 00 00 if w3 == 1 goto +9 <LBB0_65> 137: 16 03 01 00 02 00 00 00 if w3 == 2 goto +1 <LBB0_66> 138: 05 00 0a 00 00 00 00 00 goto +10 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000458 <LBB0_66>: 139: 69 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u16 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 140: 05 00 08 00 00 00 00 00 goto +8 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000468 <LBB0_63>: 141: 16 03 06 00 04 00 00 00 if w3 == 4 goto +6 <LBB0_67> 142: 16 03 01 00 08 00 00 00 if w3 == 8 goto +1 <LBB0_68> 143: 05 00 05 00 00 00 00 00 goto +5 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000480 <LBB0_68>: 144: 79 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u64 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 145: 05 00 03 00 00 00 00 00 goto +3 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000490 <LBB0_65>: 146: 71 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u8 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 147: 05 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 goto +1 <LBB0_69> 00000000000004a0 <LBB0_67>: 148: 61 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u32 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 00000000000004a8 <LBB0_69>: 149: 67 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 <<= 32 150: b7 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 151: 16 02 02 00 00 00 00 00 if w2 == 0 goto +2 <LBB0_71> 152: c7 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 s>>= 32 153: 05 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 goto +1 <LBB0_72> 00000000000004d0 <LBB0_71>: 154: 77 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 >>= 323 Fixes: ee26dad ("libbpf: Add support for relocatable bitfields") Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 26, 2021
Fix BPF_CORE_READ_BITFIELD() macro used for reading CO-RE-relocatable bitfields. Missing breaks in a switch caused 8-byte reads always. This can confuse libbpf because it does strict checks that memory load size corresponds to the original size of the field, which in this case quite often would be wrong. After fixing that, we run into another problem, which quite subtle, so worth documenting here. The issue is in Clang optimization and CO-RE relocation interactions. Without that asm volatile construct (also known as barrier_var()), Clang will re-order BYTE_OFFSET and BYTE_SIZE relocations and will apply BYTE_OFFSET 4 times for each switch case arm. This will result in the same error from libbpf about mismatch of memory load size and original field size. I.e., if we were reading u32, we'd still have *(u8 *), *(u16 *), *(u32 *), and *(u64 *) memory loads, three of which will fail. Using barrier_var() forces Clang to apply BYTE_OFFSET relocation first (and once) to calculate p, after which value of p is used without relocation in each of switch case arms, doing appropiately-sized memory load. Here's the list of relevant relocations and pieces of generated BPF code before and after this patch for test_core_reloc_bitfields_direct selftests. BEFORE ===== #45: core_reloc: insn #160 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_sz --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #46: core_reloc: insn #167 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #47: core_reloc: insn #174 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #48: core_reloc: insn #178 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #49: core_reloc: insn #182 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 157: 18 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 ll 159: 7b 12 20 01 00 00 00 00 *(u64 *)(r2 + 288) = r1 160: b7 02 00 00 04 00 00 00 r2 = 4 ; BYTE_SIZE relocation here ^^^ 161: 66 02 07 00 03 00 00 00 if w2 s> 3 goto +7 <LBB0_63> 162: 16 02 0d 00 01 00 00 00 if w2 == 1 goto +13 <LBB0_65> 163: 16 02 01 00 02 00 00 00 if w2 == 2 goto +1 <LBB0_66> 164: 05 00 12 00 00 00 00 00 goto +18 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000528 <LBB0_66>: 165: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 167: 69 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u16 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ WRONG size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 168: 05 00 0e 00 00 00 00 00 goto +14 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000548 <LBB0_63>: 169: 16 02 0a 00 04 00 00 00 if w2 == 4 goto +10 <LBB0_67> 170: 16 02 01 00 08 00 00 00 if w2 == 8 goto +1 <LBB0_68> 171: 05 00 0b 00 00 00 00 00 goto +11 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000560 <LBB0_68>: 172: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 174: 79 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ WRONG size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 175: 05 00 07 00 00 00 00 00 goto +7 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000580 <LBB0_65>: 176: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 178: 71 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u8 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ WRONG size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 179: 05 00 03 00 00 00 00 00 goto +3 <LBB0_69> 00000000000005a0 <LBB0_67>: 180: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 182: 61 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ RIGHT size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 00000000000005b8 <LBB0_69>: 183: 67 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 <<= 32 184: b7 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 185: 16 02 02 00 00 00 00 00 if w2 == 0 goto +2 <LBB0_71> 186: c7 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 s>>= 32 187: 05 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 goto +1 <LBB0_72> 00000000000005e0 <LBB0_71>: 188: 77 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 >>= 32 AFTER ===== #30: core_reloc: insn #132 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #31: core_reloc: insn #134 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_sz --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 129: 18 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 ll 131: 7b 12 20 01 00 00 00 00 *(u64 *)(r2 + 288) = r1 132: b7 01 00 00 08 00 00 00 r1 = 8 ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here ^^^ ; no size check for non-memory dereferencing instructions 133: 0f 12 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 += r1 134: b7 03 00 00 04 00 00 00 r3 = 4 ; BYTE_SIZE relocation here ^^^ 135: 66 03 05 00 03 00 00 00 if w3 s> 3 goto +5 <LBB0_63> 136: 16 03 09 00 01 00 00 00 if w3 == 1 goto +9 <LBB0_65> 137: 16 03 01 00 02 00 00 00 if w3 == 2 goto +1 <LBB0_66> 138: 05 00 0a 00 00 00 00 00 goto +10 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000458 <LBB0_66>: 139: 69 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u16 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 140: 05 00 08 00 00 00 00 00 goto +8 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000468 <LBB0_63>: 141: 16 03 06 00 04 00 00 00 if w3 == 4 goto +6 <LBB0_67> 142: 16 03 01 00 08 00 00 00 if w3 == 8 goto +1 <LBB0_68> 143: 05 00 05 00 00 00 00 00 goto +5 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000480 <LBB0_68>: 144: 79 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u64 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 145: 05 00 03 00 00 00 00 00 goto +3 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000490 <LBB0_65>: 146: 71 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u8 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 147: 05 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 goto +1 <LBB0_69> 00000000000004a0 <LBB0_67>: 148: 61 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u32 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 00000000000004a8 <LBB0_69>: 149: 67 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 <<= 32 150: b7 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 151: 16 02 02 00 00 00 00 00 if w2 == 0 goto +2 <LBB0_71> 152: c7 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 s>>= 32 153: 05 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 goto +1 <LBB0_72> 00000000000004d0 <LBB0_71>: 154: 77 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 >>= 323 Fixes: ee26dad ("libbpf: Add support for relocatable bitfields") Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 26, 2021
Fix BPF_CORE_READ_BITFIELD() macro used for reading CO-RE-relocatable bitfields. Missing breaks in a switch caused 8-byte reads always. This can confuse libbpf because it does strict checks that memory load size corresponds to the original size of the field, which in this case quite often would be wrong. After fixing that, we run into another problem, which quite subtle, so worth documenting here. The issue is in Clang optimization and CO-RE relocation interactions. Without that asm volatile construct (also known as barrier_var()), Clang will re-order BYTE_OFFSET and BYTE_SIZE relocations and will apply BYTE_OFFSET 4 times for each switch case arm. This will result in the same error from libbpf about mismatch of memory load size and original field size. I.e., if we were reading u32, we'd still have *(u8 *), *(u16 *), *(u32 *), and *(u64 *) memory loads, three of which will fail. Using barrier_var() forces Clang to apply BYTE_OFFSET relocation first (and once) to calculate p, after which value of p is used without relocation in each of switch case arms, doing appropiately-sized memory load. Here's the list of relevant relocations and pieces of generated BPF code before and after this patch for test_core_reloc_bitfields_direct selftests. BEFORE ===== #45: core_reloc: insn #160 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_sz --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #46: core_reloc: insn #167 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #47: core_reloc: insn #174 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #48: core_reloc: insn #178 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #49: core_reloc: insn #182 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 157: 18 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 ll 159: 7b 12 20 01 00 00 00 00 *(u64 *)(r2 + 288) = r1 160: b7 02 00 00 04 00 00 00 r2 = 4 ; BYTE_SIZE relocation here ^^^ 161: 66 02 07 00 03 00 00 00 if w2 s> 3 goto +7 <LBB0_63> 162: 16 02 0d 00 01 00 00 00 if w2 == 1 goto +13 <LBB0_65> 163: 16 02 01 00 02 00 00 00 if w2 == 2 goto +1 <LBB0_66> 164: 05 00 12 00 00 00 00 00 goto +18 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000528 <LBB0_66>: 165: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 167: 69 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u16 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ WRONG size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 168: 05 00 0e 00 00 00 00 00 goto +14 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000548 <LBB0_63>: 169: 16 02 0a 00 04 00 00 00 if w2 == 4 goto +10 <LBB0_67> 170: 16 02 01 00 08 00 00 00 if w2 == 8 goto +1 <LBB0_68> 171: 05 00 0b 00 00 00 00 00 goto +11 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000560 <LBB0_68>: 172: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 174: 79 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ WRONG size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 175: 05 00 07 00 00 00 00 00 goto +7 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000580 <LBB0_65>: 176: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 178: 71 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u8 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ WRONG size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 179: 05 00 03 00 00 00 00 00 goto +3 <LBB0_69> 00000000000005a0 <LBB0_67>: 180: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 182: 61 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ RIGHT size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 00000000000005b8 <LBB0_69>: 183: 67 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 <<= 32 184: b7 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 185: 16 02 02 00 00 00 00 00 if w2 == 0 goto +2 <LBB0_71> 186: c7 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 s>>= 32 187: 05 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 goto +1 <LBB0_72> 00000000000005e0 <LBB0_71>: 188: 77 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 >>= 32 AFTER ===== #30: core_reloc: insn #132 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #31: core_reloc: insn #134 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_sz --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 129: 18 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 ll 131: 7b 12 20 01 00 00 00 00 *(u64 *)(r2 + 288) = r1 132: b7 01 00 00 08 00 00 00 r1 = 8 ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here ^^^ ; no size check for non-memory dereferencing instructions 133: 0f 12 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 += r1 134: b7 03 00 00 04 00 00 00 r3 = 4 ; BYTE_SIZE relocation here ^^^ 135: 66 03 05 00 03 00 00 00 if w3 s> 3 goto +5 <LBB0_63> 136: 16 03 09 00 01 00 00 00 if w3 == 1 goto +9 <LBB0_65> 137: 16 03 01 00 02 00 00 00 if w3 == 2 goto +1 <LBB0_66> 138: 05 00 0a 00 00 00 00 00 goto +10 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000458 <LBB0_66>: 139: 69 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u16 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 140: 05 00 08 00 00 00 00 00 goto +8 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000468 <LBB0_63>: 141: 16 03 06 00 04 00 00 00 if w3 == 4 goto +6 <LBB0_67> 142: 16 03 01 00 08 00 00 00 if w3 == 8 goto +1 <LBB0_68> 143: 05 00 05 00 00 00 00 00 goto +5 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000480 <LBB0_68>: 144: 79 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u64 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 145: 05 00 03 00 00 00 00 00 goto +3 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000490 <LBB0_65>: 146: 71 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u8 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 147: 05 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 goto +1 <LBB0_69> 00000000000004a0 <LBB0_67>: 148: 61 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u32 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 00000000000004a8 <LBB0_69>: 149: 67 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 <<= 32 150: b7 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 151: 16 02 02 00 00 00 00 00 if w2 == 0 goto +2 <LBB0_71> 152: c7 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 s>>= 32 153: 05 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 goto +1 <LBB0_72> 00000000000004d0 <LBB0_71>: 154: 77 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 >>= 323 Acked-by: Lorenz Bauer <[email protected]> Fixes: ee26dad ("libbpf: Add support for relocatable bitfields") Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 27, 2021
Fix BPF_CORE_READ_BITFIELD() macro used for reading CO-RE-relocatable bitfields. Missing breaks in a switch caused 8-byte reads always. This can confuse libbpf because it does strict checks that memory load size corresponds to the original size of the field, which in this case quite often would be wrong. After fixing that, we run into another problem, which quite subtle, so worth documenting here. The issue is in Clang optimization and CO-RE relocation interactions. Without that asm volatile construct (also known as barrier_var()), Clang will re-order BYTE_OFFSET and BYTE_SIZE relocations and will apply BYTE_OFFSET 4 times for each switch case arm. This will result in the same error from libbpf about mismatch of memory load size and original field size. I.e., if we were reading u32, we'd still have *(u8 *), *(u16 *), *(u32 *), and *(u64 *) memory loads, three of which will fail. Using barrier_var() forces Clang to apply BYTE_OFFSET relocation first (and once) to calculate p, after which value of p is used without relocation in each of switch case arms, doing appropiately-sized memory load. Here's the list of relevant relocations and pieces of generated BPF code before and after this patch for test_core_reloc_bitfields_direct selftests. BEFORE ===== #45: core_reloc: insn #160 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_sz --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #46: core_reloc: insn #167 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #47: core_reloc: insn #174 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #48: core_reloc: insn #178 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #49: core_reloc: insn #182 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 157: 18 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 ll 159: 7b 12 20 01 00 00 00 00 *(u64 *)(r2 + 288) = r1 160: b7 02 00 00 04 00 00 00 r2 = 4 ; BYTE_SIZE relocation here ^^^ 161: 66 02 07 00 03 00 00 00 if w2 s> 3 goto +7 <LBB0_63> 162: 16 02 0d 00 01 00 00 00 if w2 == 1 goto +13 <LBB0_65> 163: 16 02 01 00 02 00 00 00 if w2 == 2 goto +1 <LBB0_66> 164: 05 00 12 00 00 00 00 00 goto +18 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000528 <LBB0_66>: 165: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 167: 69 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u16 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ WRONG size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 168: 05 00 0e 00 00 00 00 00 goto +14 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000548 <LBB0_63>: 169: 16 02 0a 00 04 00 00 00 if w2 == 4 goto +10 <LBB0_67> 170: 16 02 01 00 08 00 00 00 if w2 == 8 goto +1 <LBB0_68> 171: 05 00 0b 00 00 00 00 00 goto +11 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000560 <LBB0_68>: 172: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 174: 79 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ WRONG size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 175: 05 00 07 00 00 00 00 00 goto +7 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000580 <LBB0_65>: 176: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 178: 71 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u8 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ WRONG size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 179: 05 00 03 00 00 00 00 00 goto +3 <LBB0_69> 00000000000005a0 <LBB0_67>: 180: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 182: 61 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ RIGHT size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 00000000000005b8 <LBB0_69>: 183: 67 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 <<= 32 184: b7 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 185: 16 02 02 00 00 00 00 00 if w2 == 0 goto +2 <LBB0_71> 186: c7 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 s>>= 32 187: 05 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 goto +1 <LBB0_72> 00000000000005e0 <LBB0_71>: 188: 77 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 >>= 32 AFTER ===== #30: core_reloc: insn #132 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #31: core_reloc: insn #134 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_sz --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 129: 18 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 ll 131: 7b 12 20 01 00 00 00 00 *(u64 *)(r2 + 288) = r1 132: b7 01 00 00 08 00 00 00 r1 = 8 ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here ^^^ ; no size check for non-memory dereferencing instructions 133: 0f 12 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 += r1 134: b7 03 00 00 04 00 00 00 r3 = 4 ; BYTE_SIZE relocation here ^^^ 135: 66 03 05 00 03 00 00 00 if w3 s> 3 goto +5 <LBB0_63> 136: 16 03 09 00 01 00 00 00 if w3 == 1 goto +9 <LBB0_65> 137: 16 03 01 00 02 00 00 00 if w3 == 2 goto +1 <LBB0_66> 138: 05 00 0a 00 00 00 00 00 goto +10 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000458 <LBB0_66>: 139: 69 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u16 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 140: 05 00 08 00 00 00 00 00 goto +8 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000468 <LBB0_63>: 141: 16 03 06 00 04 00 00 00 if w3 == 4 goto +6 <LBB0_67> 142: 16 03 01 00 08 00 00 00 if w3 == 8 goto +1 <LBB0_68> 143: 05 00 05 00 00 00 00 00 goto +5 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000480 <LBB0_68>: 144: 79 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u64 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 145: 05 00 03 00 00 00 00 00 goto +3 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000490 <LBB0_65>: 146: 71 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u8 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 147: 05 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 goto +1 <LBB0_69> 00000000000004a0 <LBB0_67>: 148: 61 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u32 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 00000000000004a8 <LBB0_69>: 149: 67 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 <<= 32 150: b7 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 151: 16 02 02 00 00 00 00 00 if w2 == 0 goto +2 <LBB0_71> 152: c7 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 s>>= 32 153: 05 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 goto +1 <LBB0_72> 00000000000004d0 <LBB0_71>: 154: 77 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 >>= 323 Fixes: ee26dad ("libbpf: Add support for relocatable bitfields") Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <[email protected]> Acked-by: Lorenz Bauer <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]
kernel-patches-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 18, 2021
In this patch -
1) Add a new prog "for_each_helper" which tests the basic functionality of
the bpf_for_each helper.
2) Add pyperf600_foreach and strobemeta_foreach to test the performance
of using bpf_for_each instead of a for loop
The results of pyperf600 and strobemeta are as follows:
~strobemeta~
Baseline
verification time 6808200 usec
stack depth 496
processed 592132 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 14
total_states 16018 peak_states 13684 mark_read 3132
#188 verif_scale_strobemeta:OK (unrolled loop)
Using bpf_for_each
verification time 31589 usec
stack depth 96+408
processed 1630 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 4
total_states 107 peak_states 107 mark_read 60
#189 verif_scale_strobemeta_foreach:OK
~pyperf600~
Baseline
verification time 29702486 usec
stack depth 368
processed 626838 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 7
total_states 30368 peak_states 30279 mark_read 748
#182 verif_scale_pyperf600:OK (unrolled loop)
Using bpf_for_each
verification time 148488 usec
stack depth 320+40
processed 10518 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 10
total_states 705 peak_states 517 mark_read 38
#183 verif_scale_pyperf600_foreach:OK
Using the bpf_for_each helper led to approximately a 100% decrease
in the verification time and in the number of instructions.
Signed-off-by: Joanne Koong <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 18, 2021
In this patch -
1) Add a new prog "for_each_helper" which tests the basic functionality of
the bpf_for_each helper.
2) Add pyperf600_foreach and strobemeta_foreach to test the performance
of using bpf_for_each instead of a for loop
The results of pyperf600 and strobemeta are as follows:
~strobemeta~
Baseline
verification time 6808200 usec
stack depth 496
processed 592132 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 14
total_states 16018 peak_states 13684 mark_read 3132
#188 verif_scale_strobemeta:OK (unrolled loop)
Using bpf_for_each
verification time 31589 usec
stack depth 96+408
processed 1630 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 4
total_states 107 peak_states 107 mark_read 60
#189 verif_scale_strobemeta_foreach:OK
~pyperf600~
Baseline
verification time 29702486 usec
stack depth 368
processed 626838 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 7
total_states 30368 peak_states 30279 mark_read 748
#182 verif_scale_pyperf600:OK (unrolled loop)
Using bpf_for_each
verification time 148488 usec
stack depth 320+40
processed 10518 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 10
total_states 705 peak_states 517 mark_read 38
#183 verif_scale_pyperf600_foreach:OK
Using the bpf_for_each helper led to approximately a 100% decrease
in the verification time and in the number of instructions.
Signed-off-by: Joanne Koong <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 23, 2021
This patch tests bpf_loop in pyperf and strobemeta, and measures the
verifier performance of replacing the traditional for loop
with bpf_loop.
The results are as follows:
~strobemeta~
Baseline
verification time 6808200 usec
stack depth 496
processed 554252 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 16
total_states 15878 peak_states 13489 mark_read 3110
#192 verif_scale_strobemeta:OK (unrolled loop)
Using bpf_loop
verification time 31589 usec
stack depth 96+400
processed 1513 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 2
total_states 106 peak_states 106 mark_read 60
#193 verif_scale_strobemeta_bpf_loop:OK
~pyperf600~
Baseline
verification time 29702486 usec
stack depth 368
processed 626838 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 7
total_states 30368 peak_states 30279 mark_read 748
#182 verif_scale_pyperf600:OK (unrolled loop)
Using bpf_loop
verification time 148488 usec
stack depth 320+40
processed 10518 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 10
total_states 705 peak_states 517 mark_read 38
#183 verif_scale_pyperf600_bpf_loop:OK
Using the bpf_loop helper led to approximately a 99% decrease
in the verification time and in the number of instructions.
Signed-off-by: Joanne Koong <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 29, 2021
This patch tests bpf_loop in pyperf and strobemeta, and measures the
verifier performance of replacing the traditional for loop
with bpf_loop.
The results are as follows:
~strobemeta~
Baseline
verification time 6808200 usec
stack depth 496
processed 554252 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 16
total_states 15878 peak_states 13489 mark_read 3110
#192 verif_scale_strobemeta:OK (unrolled loop)
Using bpf_loop
verification time 31589 usec
stack depth 96+400
processed 1513 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 2
total_states 106 peak_states 106 mark_read 60
#193 verif_scale_strobemeta_bpf_loop:OK
~pyperf600~
Baseline
verification time 29702486 usec
stack depth 368
processed 626838 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 7
total_states 30368 peak_states 30279 mark_read 748
#182 verif_scale_pyperf600:OK (unrolled loop)
Using bpf_loop
verification time 148488 usec
stack depth 320+40
processed 10518 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 10
total_states 705 peak_states 517 mark_read 38
#183 verif_scale_pyperf600_bpf_loop:OK
Using the bpf_loop helper led to approximately a 99% decrease
in the verification time and in the number of instructions.
Signed-off-by: Joanne Koong <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 30, 2021
This patch tests bpf_loop in pyperf and strobemeta, and measures the
verifier performance of replacing the traditional for loop
with bpf_loop.
The results are as follows:
~strobemeta~
Baseline
verification time 6808200 usec
stack depth 496
processed 554252 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 16
total_states 15878 peak_states 13489 mark_read 3110
#192 verif_scale_strobemeta:OK (unrolled loop)
Using bpf_loop
verification time 31589 usec
stack depth 96+400
processed 1513 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 2
total_states 106 peak_states 106 mark_read 60
#193 verif_scale_strobemeta_bpf_loop:OK
~pyperf600~
Baseline
verification time 29702486 usec
stack depth 368
processed 626838 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 7
total_states 30368 peak_states 30279 mark_read 748
#182 verif_scale_pyperf600:OK (unrolled loop)
Using bpf_loop
verification time 148488 usec
stack depth 320+40
processed 10518 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 10
total_states 705 peak_states 517 mark_read 38
#183 verif_scale_pyperf600_bpf_loop:OK
Using the bpf_loop helper led to approximately a 99% decrease
in the verification time and in the number of instructions.
Signed-off-by: Joanne Koong <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 30, 2021
This patch tests bpf_loop in pyperf and strobemeta, and measures the
verifier performance of replacing the traditional for loop
with bpf_loop.
The results are as follows:
~strobemeta~
Baseline
verification time 6808200 usec
stack depth 496
processed 554252 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 16
total_states 15878 peak_states 13489 mark_read 3110
#192 verif_scale_strobemeta:OK (unrolled loop)
Using bpf_loop
verification time 31589 usec
stack depth 96+400
processed 1513 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 2
total_states 106 peak_states 106 mark_read 60
#193 verif_scale_strobemeta_bpf_loop:OK
~pyperf600~
Baseline
verification time 29702486 usec
stack depth 368
processed 626838 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 7
total_states 30368 peak_states 30279 mark_read 748
#182 verif_scale_pyperf600:OK (unrolled loop)
Using bpf_loop
verification time 148488 usec
stack depth 320+40
processed 10518 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 10
total_states 705 peak_states 517 mark_read 38
#183 verif_scale_pyperf600_bpf_loop:OK
Using the bpf_loop helper led to approximately a 99% decrease
in the verification time and in the number of instructions.
Signed-off-by: Joanne Koong <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 30, 2021
This patch tests bpf_loop in pyperf and strobemeta, and measures the
verifier performance of replacing the traditional for loop
with bpf_loop.
The results are as follows:
~strobemeta~
Baseline
verification time 6808200 usec
stack depth 496
processed 554252 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 16
total_states 15878 peak_states 13489 mark_read 3110
#192 verif_scale_strobemeta:OK (unrolled loop)
Using bpf_loop
verification time 31589 usec
stack depth 96+400
processed 1513 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 2
total_states 106 peak_states 106 mark_read 60
#193 verif_scale_strobemeta_bpf_loop:OK
~pyperf600~
Baseline
verification time 29702486 usec
stack depth 368
processed 626838 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 7
total_states 30368 peak_states 30279 mark_read 748
#182 verif_scale_pyperf600:OK (unrolled loop)
Using bpf_loop
verification time 148488 usec
stack depth 320+40
processed 10518 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 10
total_states 705 peak_states 517 mark_read 38
#183 verif_scale_pyperf600_bpf_loop:OK
Using the bpf_loop helper led to approximately a 99% decrease
in the verification time and in the number of instructions.
Signed-off-by: Joanne Koong <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 30, 2021
This patch tests bpf_loop in pyperf and strobemeta, and measures the
verifier performance of replacing the traditional for loop
with bpf_loop.
The results are as follows:
~strobemeta~
Baseline
verification time 6808200 usec
stack depth 496
processed 554252 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 16
total_states 15878 peak_states 13489 mark_read 3110
#192 verif_scale_strobemeta:OK (unrolled loop)
Using bpf_loop
verification time 31589 usec
stack depth 96+400
processed 1513 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 2
total_states 106 peak_states 106 mark_read 60
#193 verif_scale_strobemeta_bpf_loop:OK
~pyperf600~
Baseline
verification time 29702486 usec
stack depth 368
processed 626838 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 7
total_states 30368 peak_states 30279 mark_read 748
#182 verif_scale_pyperf600:OK (unrolled loop)
Using bpf_loop
verification time 148488 usec
stack depth 320+40
processed 10518 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 10
total_states 705 peak_states 517 mark_read 38
#183 verif_scale_pyperf600_bpf_loop:OK
Using the bpf_loop helper led to approximately a 99% decrease
in the verification time and in the number of instructions.
Signed-off-by: Joanne Koong <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]
kernel-patches-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 4, 2022
Add a big batch of selftest to extend test_progs with various tc link, attach ops and old-style tc BPF attachments via libbpf APIs. Also test multi-program attachments including mixing the various attach options: # ./test_progs -t tc_link #179 tc_link_base:OK #180 tc_link_detach:OK #181 tc_link_mix:OK #182 tc_link_opts:OK #183 tc_link_run_base:OK #184 tc_link_run_chain:OK Summary: 6/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED All new and existing test cases pass. Co-developed-by: Nikolay Aleksandrov <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Nikolay Aleksandrov <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 4, 2024
Somehow recently I frequently hit the following test failure with either ./test_progs or ./test_progs-cpuv4: serial_test_ptr_untrusted:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec serial_test_ptr_untrusted:PASS:lsm_attach 0 nsec serial_test_ptr_untrusted:PASS:raw_tp_attach 0 nsec serial_test_ptr_untrusted:FAIL:cmp_tp_name unexpected cmp_tp_name: actual -115 != expected 0 #182 ptr_untrusted:FAIL Further investigation found the failure is due to bpf_probe_read_user_str() where reading user-level string attr->raw_tracepoint.name is not successfully, most likely due to the string itself still in disk and not populated into memory yet. One solution is do a printf() call of the string before doing bpf syscall which will force the raw_tracepoint.name into memory. But I think a more robust solution is to use bpf_copy_from_user() which is used in sleepable program and can tolerate page fault, and the fix here used the latter approach. Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 5, 2024
Somehow recently I frequently hit the following test failure with either ./test_progs or ./test_progs-cpuv4: serial_test_ptr_untrusted:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec serial_test_ptr_untrusted:PASS:lsm_attach 0 nsec serial_test_ptr_untrusted:PASS:raw_tp_attach 0 nsec serial_test_ptr_untrusted:FAIL:cmp_tp_name unexpected cmp_tp_name: actual -115 != expected 0 #182 ptr_untrusted:FAIL Further investigation found the failure is due to bpf_probe_read_user_str() where reading user-level string attr->raw_tracepoint.name is not successfully, most likely due to the string itself still in disk and not populated into memory yet. One solution is do a printf() call of the string before doing bpf syscall which will force the raw_tracepoint.name into memory. But I think a more robust solution is to use bpf_copy_from_user() which is used in sleepable program and can tolerate page fault, and the fix here used the latter approach. Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 5, 2024
Somehow recently I frequently hit the following test failure with either ./test_progs or ./test_progs-cpuv4: serial_test_ptr_untrusted:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec serial_test_ptr_untrusted:PASS:lsm_attach 0 nsec serial_test_ptr_untrusted:PASS:raw_tp_attach 0 nsec serial_test_ptr_untrusted:FAIL:cmp_tp_name unexpected cmp_tp_name: actual -115 != expected 0 #182 ptr_untrusted:FAIL Further investigation found the failure is due to bpf_probe_read_user_str() where reading user-level string attr->raw_tracepoint.name is not successfully, most likely due to the string itself still in disk and not populated into memory yet. One solution is do a printf() call of the string before doing bpf syscall which will force the raw_tracepoint.name into memory. But I think a more robust solution is to use bpf_copy_from_user() which is used in sleepable program and can tolerate page fault, and the fix here used the latter approach. Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 11, 2025
Commit 8284066 ("ublk: grab request reference when the request is handled by userspace") doesn't grab request reference in case of recovery reissue. Then the request can be requeued & re-dispatch & failed when canceling uring command. If it is one zc request, the request can be freed before io_uring returns the zc buffer back, then cause kernel panic: [ 126.773061] BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 00000000000000c8 [ 126.773657] #PF: supervisor read access in kernel mode [ 126.774052] #PF: error_code(0x0000) - not-present page [ 126.774455] PGD 0 P4D 0 [ 126.774698] Oops: Oops: 0000 [kernel-patches#1] SMP NOPTI [ 126.775034] CPU: 13 UID: 0 PID: 1612 Comm: kworker/u64:55 Not tainted 6.14.0_blk+ kernel-patches#182 PREEMPT(full) [ 126.775676] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.16.3-1.fc39 04/01/2014 [ 126.776275] Workqueue: iou_exit io_ring_exit_work [ 126.776651] RIP: 0010:ublk_io_release+0x14/0x130 [ublk_drv] Fixes it by always grabbing request reference for aborting the request. Reported-by: Caleb Sander Mateos <[email protected]> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/CADUfDZodKfOGUeWrnAxcZiLT+puaZX8jDHoj_sfHZCOZwhzz6A@mail.gmail.com/ Fixes: 8284066 ("ublk: grab request reference when the request is handled by userspace") Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected] Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Pull request for series with
subject: netlink: export policy on validation failures
version: 2
url: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/bpf/list/?series=360463