From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7348EC433DB for ; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 12:04:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15CD864DBD for ; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 12:04:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233445AbhBXMDf (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Feb 2021 07:03:35 -0500 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:41804 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233365AbhBXMDf (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Feb 2021 07:03:35 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098409.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 11OBY4uH148032; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 07:02:41 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=message-id : subject : from : to : cc : date : in-reply-to : references : content-type : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=Kz3gGIfpD8P0bGFLWzPyaeG8hJKUUbWajDPitTMkAxI=; b=LtrvVv7vnojM/btKLt4sm2AB625waaQsHeHoBYrO5i5i+e1cISjF8vha+Q89Wya4UmbB Fu1s6m2IvezfCWcdUnQucuFLVu+sFFlpn3SefoVzU1PTpSQNVCBBquanAPgVX4r8hRAd agmUk661A/tDC6SsriiX6bI93M8x6xYCqqdBfgZQQwQ4RHK+/KrydgGy4RgyA83qx8X0 ln+rKN/ZpQ9Ux9rojddAhqV/HTorDERk07Iqjh/P0lI7yrXuZ/cmtYBoRM94ZppbSiEz DIMQwRODm+6a+EEZtaTI1Z2qXBFX52faFplLf1RVajV3B2QR+q1QCA7p3Aiki94D+XCJ YQ== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 36wktkwvya-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 24 Feb 2021 07:02:41 -0500 Received: from m0098409.ppops.net (m0098409.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 11OBZkMA154161; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 07:02:41 -0500 Received: from ppma04fra.de.ibm.com (6a.4a.5195.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [149.81.74.106]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 36wktkwvwy-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 24 Feb 2021 07:02:41 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma04fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma04fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 11OBw98n015339; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 12:02:38 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay12.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.197]) by ppma04fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 36tt289upj-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 24 Feb 2021 12:02:38 +0000 Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.60]) by b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 11OC2aPM64225682 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 24 Feb 2021 12:02:36 GMT Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 576D742045; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 12:02:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id E163142042; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 12:02:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sig-9-145-151-190.de.ibm.com (unknown [9.145.151.190]) by d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 12:02:35 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <0d724d02826950e5911ff26125df79541eb32ffc.camel@linux.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next] bpf: Explicitly zero-extend R0 after 32-bit cmpxchg From: Ilya Leoshkevich To: Brendan Jackman , bpf@vger.kernel.org Cc: Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , Andrii Nakryiko , KP Singh , Florent Revest Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 13:02:35 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20210223150845.1857620-1-jackmanb@google.com> References: <20210223150845.1857620-1-jackmanb@google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.4 (3.38.4-1.fc33) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.369,18.0.761 definitions=2021-02-24_03:2021-02-24,2021-02-24 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 mlxscore=0 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 lowpriorityscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 priorityscore=1501 clxscore=1015 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2102240091 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2021-02-23 at 15:08 +0000, Brendan Jackman wrote: > As pointed out by Ilya and explained in the new comment, there's a > discrepancy between x86 and BPF CMPXCHG semantics: BPF always loads > the value from memory into r0, while x86 only does so when r0 and the > value in memory are different. The same issue affects s390. > > At first this might sound like pure semantics, but it makes a real > difference when the comparison is 32-bit, since the load will > zero-extend r0/rax. > > The fix is to explicitly zero-extend rax after doing such a > CMPXCHG. Since this problem affects multiple archs, this is done in > the verifier by patching in a BPF_ZEXT_REG instruction after every > 32-bit cmpxchg. Any archs that don't need such manual zero-extension > can do a look-ahead with insn_is_zext to skip the unnecessary mov. > > There was actually already logic to patch in zero-extension insns > after 32-bit cmpxchgs, in opt_subreg_zext_lo32_rnd_hi32. To avoid > bloating the prog with unnecessary movs, we now explicitly check and > skip that logic for this case. > > Reported-by: Ilya Leoshkevich > Fixes: 5ffa25502b5a ("bpf: Add instructions for atomic_[cmp]xchg") > Signed-off-by: Brendan Jackman > --- > > Differences v3->v4[1]: >  - Moved the optimization against pointless zext into the correct > place: >    opt_subreg_zext_lo32_rnd_hi32 is called _after_ fixup_bpf_calls. > > Differences v2->v3[1]: >  - Moved patching into fixup_bpf_calls (patch incoming to rename this > function) >  - Added extra commentary on bpf_jit_needs_zext >  - Added check to avoid adding a pointless zext(r0) if there's > already one there. > > Difference v1->v2[1]: Now solved centrally in the verifier instead of >   specifically for the x86 JIT. Thanks to Ilya and Daniel for the > suggestions! > > [1] v3: > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/08669818-c99d-0d30-e1db-53160c063611@iogearbox.net/T/#t >     v2: > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/08669818-c99d-0d30-e1db-53160c063611@iogearbox.net/T/#t >     v1: > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/d7ebaefb-bfd6-a441-3ff2-2fdfe699b1d2@iogearbox.net/T/#t > >  kernel/bpf/core.c                             |  4 +++ >  kernel/bpf/verifier.c                         | 33 > +++++++++++++++++-- >  .../selftests/bpf/verifier/atomic_cmpxchg.c   | 25 ++++++++++++++ >  .../selftests/bpf/verifier/atomic_or.c        | 26 +++++++++++++++ >  4 files changed, 86 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) Unfortunately this still gives me 2 x `w0 = w0` on s390, but the culprit seems to be not your patch, but rather that adjust_insn_aux_data() is messing up zext_dst. I'll try to debug further and come up with a fix.