I think there is something wrong with BPF_PROBE_MEM in ___bpf_prog_run()
in big-endian machine. Let's make a test and see what will happen if we
want to load a 'u16' with BPF_PROBE_MEM.
Let's make the src value '0x0001', the value of dest register will become
0x0001000000000000, as the value will be loaded to the first 2 byte of
DST with following code:
bpf_probe_read_kernel(&DST, SIZE, (const void *)(long) (SRC + insn->off));
Obviously, the value in DST is not correct. In fact, we can compare
BPF_PROBE_MEM with LDX_MEM_H:
DST = *(SIZE *)(unsigned long) (SRC + insn->off);
If the memory load is done by LDX_MEM_H, the value in DST will be 0x1 now.
And I think this error results in the test case 'test_bpf_sk_storage_map'
failing:
test_bpf_sk_storage_map:PASS:bpf_iter_bpf_sk_storage_map__open_and_load 0 nsec
test_bpf_sk_storage_map:PASS:socket 0 nsec
test_bpf_sk_storage_map:PASS:map_update 0 nsec
test_bpf_sk_storage_map:PASS:socket 0 nsec
test_bpf_sk_storage_map:PASS:map_update 0 nsec
test_bpf_sk_storage_map:PASS:socket 0 nsec
test_bpf_sk_storage_map:PASS:map_update 0 nsec
test_bpf_sk_storage_map:PASS:attach_iter 0 nsec
test_bpf_sk_storage_map:PASS:create_iter 0 nsec
test_bpf_sk_storage_map:PASS:read 0 nsec
test_bpf_sk_storage_map:FAIL:ipv6_sk_count got 0 expected 3
$10/26 bpf_iter/bpf_sk_storage_map:FAIL
The code of the test case is simply, it will load sk->sk_family to the
register with BPF_PROBE_MEM and check if it is AF_INET6. With this patch,
now the test case 'bpf_iter' can pass:
$10 bpf_iter:OK
Fixes: 2a02759ef5 ("bpf: Add support for BTF pointers to interpreter")
Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong <imagedong@tencent.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Reviewed-by: Jiang Biao <benbjiang@tencent.com>
Reviewed-by: Hao Peng <flyingpeng@tencent.com>
Cc: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220524021228.533216-1-imagedong@tencent.com
bpf_prog_pack enables sharing huge pages among multiple BPF programs.
These pages are marked as executable before the JIT engine fill it with
BPF programs. To make these pages safe, fill the hole bpf_prog_pack with
illegal instructions before making it executable.
Fixes: 57631054fa ("bpf: Introduce bpf_prog_pack allocator")
Fixes: 33c9805860 ("bpf: Introduce bpf_jit_binary_pack_[alloc|finalize|free]")
Reported-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Song Liu <song@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220520235758.1858153-2-song@kernel.org
The combination of jit blinding and pointers to bpf subprogs causes:
[ 36.989548] BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: 0000000100000001
[ 36.990342] #PF: supervisor instruction fetch in kernel mode
[ 36.990968] #PF: error_code(0x0010) - not-present page
[ 36.994859] RIP: 0010:0x100000001
[ 36.995209] Code: Unable to access opcode bytes at RIP 0xffffffd7.
[ 37.004091] Call Trace:
[ 37.004351] <TASK>
[ 37.004576] ? bpf_loop+0x4d/0x70
[ 37.004932] ? bpf_prog_3899083f75e4c5de_F+0xe3/0x13b
The jit blinding logic didn't recognize that ld_imm64 with an address
of bpf subprogram is a special instruction and proceeded to randomize it.
By itself it wouldn't have been an issue, but jit_subprogs() logic
relies on two step process to JIT all subprogs and then JIT them
again when addresses of all subprogs are known.
Blinding process in the first JIT phase caused second JIT to miss
adjustment of special ld_imm64.
Fix this issue by ignoring special ld_imm64 instructions that don't have
user controlled constants and shouldn't be blinded.
Fixes: 69c087ba62 ("bpf: Add bpf_for_each_map_elem() helper")
Reported-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220513011025.13344-1-alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com
Using HPAGE_PMD_SIZE as the size for bpf_prog_pack is not ideal in some
cases. Specifically, for NUMA systems, __vmalloc_node_range requires
PMD_SIZE * num_online_nodes() to allocate huge pages. Also, if the system
does not support huge pages (i.e., with cmdline option nohugevmalloc), it
is better to use PAGE_SIZE packs.
Add logic to select proper size for bpf_prog_pack. This solution is not
ideal, as it makes assumption about the behavior of module_alloc and
__vmalloc_node_range. However, it appears to be the easiest solution as
it doesn't require changes in module_alloc and vmalloc code.
Fixes: 57631054fa ("bpf: Introduce bpf_prog_pack allocator")
Signed-off-by: Song Liu <song@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220311201135.3573610-1-song@kernel.org
It is the bpf_jit_harden counterpart to commit 60b58afc96 ("bpf: fix
net.core.bpf_jit_enable race"). bpf_jit_harden will be tested twice
for each subprog if there are subprogs in bpf program and constant
blinding may increase the length of program, so when running
"./test_progs -t subprogs" and toggling bpf_jit_harden between 0 and 2,
jit_subprogs may fail because constant blinding increases the length
of subprog instructions during extra passs.
So cache the value of bpf_jit_blinding_enabled() during program
allocation, and use the cached value during constant blinding, subprog
JITing and args tracking of tail call.
Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220309123321.2400262-4-houtao1@huawei.com
On do_jit failure path, the header is freed by bpf_jit_binary_pack_free.
While bpf_jit_binary_pack_free doesn't require proper ro_header->size,
bpf_prog_pack_free still uses it. Set header->size in bpf_int_jit_compile
before calling bpf_jit_binary_pack_free.
Fixes: 1022a5498f ("bpf, x86_64: Use bpf_jit_binary_pack_alloc")
Fixes: 33c9805860 ("bpf: Introduce bpf_jit_binary_pack_[alloc|finalize|free]")
Reported-by: Kui-Feng Lee <kuifeng@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Song Liu <song@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220302175126.247459-3-song@kernel.org
bpf_prog_pack causes build error with powerpc ppc64_defconfig:
kernel/bpf/core.c:830:23: error: variably modified 'bitmap' at file scope
830 | unsigned long bitmap[BITS_TO_LONGS(BPF_PROG_CHUNK_COUNT)];
| ^~~~~~
This is because the marco expands as:
unsigned long bitmap[((((((1UL) << (16 + __pte_index_size)) / (1 << 6))) \
+ ((sizeof(long) * 8)) - 1) / ((sizeof(long) * 8)))];
where __pte_index_size is a global variable.
Fix it by turning bitmap into a 0-length array.
Fixes: 57631054fa ("bpf: Introduce bpf_prog_pack allocator")
Reported-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Signed-off-by: Song Liu <song@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220211024939.2962537-1-song@kernel.org
This is the jit binary allocator built on top of bpf_prog_pack.
bpf_prog_pack allocates RO memory, which cannot be used directly by the
JIT engine. Therefore, a temporary rw buffer is allocated for the JIT
engine. Once JIT is done, bpf_jit_binary_pack_finalize is used to copy
the program to the RO memory.
bpf_jit_binary_pack_alloc reserves 16 bytes of extra space for illegal
instructions, which is small than the 128 bytes space reserved by
bpf_jit_binary_alloc. This change is necessary for bpf_jit_binary_hdr
to find the correct header. Also, flag use_bpf_prog_pack is added to
differentiate a program allocated by bpf_jit_binary_pack_alloc.
Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220204185742.271030-9-song@kernel.org
Most BPF programs are small, but they consume a page each. For systems
with busy traffic and many BPF programs, this could add significant
pressure to instruction TLB. High iTLB pressure usually causes slow down
for the whole system, which includes visible performance degradation for
production workloads.
Introduce bpf_prog_pack allocator to pack multiple BPF programs in a huge
page. The memory is then allocated in 64 byte chunks.
Memory allocated by bpf_prog_pack allocator is RO protected after initial
allocation. To write to it, the user (jit engine) need to use text poke
API.
Signed-off-by: Song Liu <song@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220204185742.271030-8-song@kernel.org
Even though there is a static key protecting from overhead from
cgroup-bpf skb filtering when there is nothing attached, in many cases
it's not enough as registering a filter for one type will ruin the fast
path for all others. It's observed in production servers I've looked
at but also in laptops, where registration is done during init by
systemd or something else.
Add a per-socket fast path check guarding from such overhead. This
affects both receive and transmit paths of TCP, UDP and other
protocols. It showed ~1% tx/s improvement in small payload UDP
send benchmarks using a real NIC and in a server environment and the
number jumps to 2-3% for preemtible kernels.
Reviewed-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/d8c58857113185a764927a46f4b5a058d36d3ec3.1643292455.git.asml.silence@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
In the current code, the actual max tail call count is 33 which is greater
than MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT (defined as 32). The actual limit is not consistent
with the meaning of MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT and thus confusing at first glance.
We can see the historical evolution from commit 04fd61ab36 ("bpf: allow
bpf programs to tail-call other bpf programs") and commit f9dabe016b
("bpf: Undo off-by-one in interpreter tail call count limit"). In order
to avoid changing existing behavior, the actual limit is 33 now, this is
reasonable.
After commit 874be05f52 ("bpf, tests: Add tail call test suite"), we can
see there exists failed testcase.
On all archs when CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON is not set:
# echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable
# modprobe test_bpf
# dmesg | grep -w FAIL
Tail call error path, max count reached jited:0 ret 34 != 33 FAIL
On some archs:
# echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable
# modprobe test_bpf
# dmesg | grep -w FAIL
Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 ret 34 != 33 FAIL
Although the above failed testcase has been fixed in commit 18935a72eb
("bpf/tests: Fix error in tail call limit tests"), it would still be good
to change the value of MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT from 32 to 33 to make the code
more readable.
The 32-bit x86 JIT was using a limit of 32, just fix the wrong comments and
limit to 33 tail calls as the constant MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT updated. For the
mips64 JIT, use "ori" instead of "addiu" as suggested by Johan Almbladh.
For the riscv JIT, use RV_REG_TCC directly to save one register move as
suggested by Björn Töpel. For the other implementations, no function changes,
it does not change the current limit 33, the new value of MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT
can reflect the actual max tail call count, the related tail call testcases
in test_bpf module and selftests can work well for the interpreter and the
JIT.
Here are the test results on x86_64:
# uname -m
x86_64
# echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable
# modprobe test_bpf test_suite=test_tail_calls
# dmesg | tail -1
test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 8 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [0/8 JIT'ed]
# rmmod test_bpf
# echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable
# modprobe test_bpf test_suite=test_tail_calls
# dmesg | tail -1
test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 8 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [8/8 JIT'ed]
# rmmod test_bpf
# ./test_progs -t tailcalls
#142 tailcalls:OK
Summary: 1/11 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Tested-by: Johan Almbladh <johan.almbladh@anyfinetworks.com>
Tested-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Johan Almbladh <johan.almbladh@anyfinetworks.com>
Acked-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/1636075800-3264-1-git-send-email-yangtiezhu@loongson.cn
