Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 7/8] bpf, x86: emit patchable direct jump as tail call

From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
	john fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
	Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 7/8] bpf, x86: emit patchable direct jump as tail call
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 21:00:35 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAEf4BzZS-yAfYXruzG5+_Wh0Ob4-ChPMPuhcDx4zDoGwUQygcA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAADnVQJqYE5TAdJ=o8nHSF1mXoXpsVNXcJtWSPQJDn7wUvxR=Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 6:28 PM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 3:25 PM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> wrote:
> > >> +       case BPF_MOD_CALL_TO_NOP:
> > >> +       case BPF_MOD_JUMP_TO_NOP:
> > >> +               if (old_addr && !new_addr) {
> > >> +                       memcpy(new_insn, nop_insn, X86_PATCH_SIZE);
> > >> +
> > >> +                       prog = old_insn;
> > >> +                       ret = emit_patch_fn(&prog, old_addr, ip);
> > >> +                       if (ret)
> > >> +                               return ret;
> > >> +                       break;
> > >> +               }
> > >> +               return -ENXIO;
> > >> +       default:
> > >
> > > There is this redundancy between BPF_MOD_xxx enums and
> > > old_addr+new_addr (both encode what kind of transition it is), which
> > > leads to this cumbersome logic. Would it be simpler to have
> > > old_addr/new_addr determine whether it's X-to-NOP, NOP-to-Y, or X-to-Y
> > > transition, while separate bool or simple BPF_MOD_CALL/BPF_MOD_JUMP
> > > enum determining whether it's a call or a jump that we want to update.
> > > Seems like that should be a simpler interface overall and cleaner
> > > implementation?
> >
> > Right we can probably simplify it further, I kept preserving the original
> > switch from Alexei's code where my assumption was that having the transition
> > explicitly spelled out was preferred in here and then based on that doing
> > the sanity checks to make sure we don't get bad input from any call-site
> > since we're modifying kernel text, e.g. in the bpf_trampoline_update() as
> > one example the BPF_MOD_* is a fixed constant input there.
>
> I guess we can try adding one more argument
> bpf_arch_text_poke(ip, BPF_MOD_NOP, old_addr, BPF_MOD_INTO_CALL, new_addr);

I was thinking along the lines of:

bpf_arch_text_poke(ip, BPF_MOD_CALL (or BPF_MOD_JMP), old_addr, new_addr);

old_addr/new_addr being possibly NULL determine NOP/not-a-NOP.

> Not sure whether it's gonna be any cleaner.
> Intuitively doesn't feel so.