From: "Björn Töpel" <bjorn@kernel.org>
To: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>, Pu Lehui <pulehui@huaweicloud.com>,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
Song Liu <song@kernel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>, Song Shuai <suagrfillet@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf] riscv, bpf: Adapt bpf trampoline to optimized riscv ftrace framework
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2023 17:18:08 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87o7k8udzj.fsf@all.your.base.are.belong.to.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <63986ef9-10a4-bcef-369d-0bad28b192d1@huawei.com>
Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com> writes:
> On 2023/7/19 4:06, Björn Töpel wrote:
>> Pu Lehui <pulehui@huaweicloud.com> writes:
>>
>>> From: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
>>>
>>> Commit 6724a76cff85 ("riscv: ftrace: Reduce the detour code size to
>>> half") optimizes the detour code size of kernel functions to half with
>>> T0 register and the upcoming DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_DIRECT_CALLS of riscv
>>> is based on this optimization, we need to adapt riscv bpf trampoline
>>> based on this. One thing to do is to reduce detour code size of bpf
>>> programs, and the second is to deal with the return address after the
>>> execution of bpf trampoline. Meanwhile, add more comments and rename
>>> some variables to make more sense. The related tests have passed.
>>>
>>> This adaptation needs to be merged before the upcoming
>>> DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_DIRECT_CALLS of riscv, otherwise it will crash due
>>> to a mismatch in the return address. So we target this modification to
>>> bpf tree and add fixes tag for locating.
>>
>> Thank you for working on this!
>>
>>> Fixes: 6724a76cff85 ("riscv: ftrace: Reduce the detour code size to half")
>>
>> This is not a fix. Nothing is broken. Only that this patch much come
>> before or as part of the ftrace series.
>
> Yep, it's really not a fix. I have no idea whether this patch target to
> bpf-next tree can be ahead of the ftrace series of riscv tree?
For this patch, I'd say it's easier to take it via the RISC-V tree, IFF
the ftrace series is in for-next.
[...]
>>> +#define DETOUR_NINSNS 2
>>
>> Better name? Maybe call this patchable function entry something? Also,
>
> How about RV_FENTRY_NINSNS?
Sure. And more importantly that it's actually used in the places where
nops/skips are done.
>> to catch future breaks like this -- would it make sense to have a
>> static_assert() combined with something tied to
>> -fpatchable-function-entry= from arch/riscv/Makefile?
>
> It is very necessary, but it doesn't seem to be easy. I try to find GCC
> related functions, something like __builtin_xxx, but I can't find it so
> far. Also try to make it as a CONFIG_PATCHABLE_FUNCTION_ENTRY=4 in
> Makefile and then static_assert, but obviously it shouldn't be done.
> Maybe we can deal with this later when we have a solution?
Ok!
[...]
>>> @@ -787,20 +762,19 @@ static int __arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline(struct bpf_tramp_image *im,
>>> int i, ret, offset;
>>> int *branches_off = NULL;
>>> int stack_size = 0, nregs = m->nr_args;
>>> - int retaddr_off, fp_off, retval_off, args_off;
>>> - int nregs_off, ip_off, run_ctx_off, sreg_off;
>>> + int fp_off, retval_off, args_off, nregs_off, ip_off, run_ctx_off, sreg_off;
>>> struct bpf_tramp_links *fentry = &tlinks[BPF_TRAMP_FENTRY];
>>> struct bpf_tramp_links *fexit = &tlinks[BPF_TRAMP_FEXIT];
>>> struct bpf_tramp_links *fmod_ret = &tlinks[BPF_TRAMP_MODIFY_RETURN];
>>> void *orig_call = func_addr;
>>> - bool save_ret;
>>> + bool save_retval, traced_ret;
>>> u32 insn;
>>>
>>> /* Generated trampoline stack layout:
>>> *
>>> * FP - 8 [ RA of parent func ] return address of parent
>>> * function
>>> - * FP - retaddr_off [ RA of traced func ] return address of traced
>>> + * FP - 16 [ RA of traced func ] return address of
>>> traced
>>
>> BPF code uses frame pointers. Shouldn't the trampoline frame look like a
>> regular frame [1], i.e. start with return address followed by previous
>> frame pointer?
>>
>
> oops, will fix it. Also we need to consider two types of trampoline
> stack layout, that is:
>
> * 1. trampoline called from function entry
> * --------------------------------------
> * FP + 8 [ RA of parent func ] return address of parent
> * function
> * FP + 0 [ FP ]
> *
> * FP - 8 [ RA of traced func ] return address of traced
> * function
> * FP - 16 [ FP ]
> * --------------------------------------
> *
> * 2. trampoline called directly
> * --------------------------------------
> * FP - 8 [ RA of caller func ] return address of caller
> * function
> * FP - 16 [ FP ]
> * --------------------------------------
Hmm, could you expand a bit on this? The stack frame top 16B (8+8)
should follow what the psabi suggests, regardless of the call site?
Maybe it's me that's not following -- please explain a bit more!
Björn
_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-07-19 15:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-07-15 9:01 [PATCH bpf] riscv, bpf: Adapt bpf trampoline to optimized riscv ftrace framework Pu Lehui
2023-07-18 20:06 ` Björn Töpel
2023-07-19 14:44 ` Pu Lehui
2023-07-19 15:18 ` Björn Töpel [this message]
2023-07-20 3:04 ` Pu Lehui
2023-07-21 8:53 ` Björn Töpel
2023-07-21 9:10 ` Pu Lehui
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87o7k8udzj.fsf@all.your.base.are.belong.to.us \
--to=bjorn@kernel.org \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=guoren@kernel.org \
--cc=haoluo@google.com \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
--cc=pulehui@huawei.com \
--cc=pulehui@huaweicloud.com \
--cc=sdf@google.com \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=suagrfillet@gmail.com \
--cc=yhs@fb.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).