From: Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@netronome.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Cc: daniel@iogearbox.net, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, oss-drivers@netronome.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 bpf-next 01/17] bpf: verifier: offer more accurate helper function arg and return type
Date: Thu, 09 May 2019 18:31:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87v9yjk013.fsf@netronome.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87ef5795b5.fsf@netronome.com>
Jiong Wang writes:
<snip>
> At the moment we have single backend hook "bpf_jit_hardware_zext", once a
> backend enable it, verifier just insert zero extension for all identified
> alu32 and narrow loads.
>
> Given verifier analysis info is not pushed down to JIT back-ends, verifier
> needs more back-end info pushed up from back-ends. Do you think make sense
> to introduce another hook "bpf_jit_hardware_zext_narrow_load"
Maybe just keep the current "bpf_jit_hardware_zext", but let it return
int/enum instead of bool. Then verifier could know hardware ability through
the enum value?
> to at least
> prevent unnecessary zext inserted for narrowed loads for arches like
> PowerPC, SPARC?
>
> The hooks to control verifier zext insertion then becomes two:
>
> bpf_jit_hardware_zext_alu32
> bpf_jit_hardware_zext_narrow_load
>
>>> And that why I introduce these new argument types, without them, there
>>> could be more than 10% extra zext inserted on benchmarks like bpf_lxc.
>>
>> 10% extra ? so be it.
>> We're talking past each other here.
>> I agree with your optimization goal, but I think you're missing
>> the safety concerns I'm trying to explain.
>>> But for helper functions, they are done by native code which may not follow
>>> this convention. For example, on arm32, calling helper functions are just
>>> jump to and execute native code. And if the helper returns u32, it just set
>>> r0, no clearing of r1 which is the high 32-bit in the register pair
>>> modeling eBPF R0.
>>
>> it's arm32 bug then. All helpers _must_ return 64-bit back to bpf prog
>> and _must_ accept 64-bit from bpf prog.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-09 17:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-05-03 10:42 [PATCH v6 bpf-next 00/17] bpf: eliminate zero extensions for sub-register writes Jiong Wang
2019-05-03 10:42 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 01/17] bpf: verifier: offer more accurate helper function arg and return type Jiong Wang
2019-05-06 13:57 ` Daniel Borkmann
2019-05-06 22:25 ` Jiong Wang
2019-05-08 11:12 ` Jiong Wang
2019-05-06 15:50 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-05-08 14:45 ` Jiong Wang
2019-05-08 17:51 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-05-09 12:32 ` Jiong Wang
2019-05-09 17:31 ` Jiong Wang [this message]
2019-05-10 1:53 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-05-10 8:30 ` Jiong Wang
2019-05-10 20:10 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-05-10 21:59 ` Jiong Wang
2019-05-03 10:42 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 02/17] bpf: verifier: mark verified-insn with sub-register zext flag Jiong Wang
2019-05-06 13:49 ` Daniel Borkmann
2019-05-06 14:49 ` Daniel Borkmann
2019-05-06 22:14 ` Jiong Wang
2019-05-03 10:42 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 03/17] bpf: verifier: mark patched-insn " Jiong Wang
2019-05-03 10:42 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 04/17] bpf: introduce new alu insn BPF_ZEXT for explicit zero extension Jiong Wang
2019-05-06 15:57 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-05-06 23:19 ` Jiong Wang
2019-05-07 4:29 ` Jiong Wang
2019-05-07 4:40 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-05-03 10:42 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 05/17] bpf: verifier: insert BPF_ZEXT according to zext analysis result Jiong Wang
2019-05-03 10:42 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 06/17] bpf: introduce new bpf prog load flags "BPF_F_TEST_RND_HI32" Jiong Wang
2019-05-03 10:42 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 07/17] bpf: verifier: randomize high 32-bit when BPF_F_TEST_RND_HI32 is set Jiong Wang
2019-05-03 10:42 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 08/17] libbpf: add "prog_flags" to bpf_program/bpf_prog_load_attr/bpf_load_program_attr Jiong Wang
2019-05-03 10:42 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 09/17] selftests: bpf: adjust several test_verifier helpers for insn insertion Jiong Wang
2019-05-03 10:42 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 10/17] selftests: bpf: enable hi32 randomization for all tests Jiong Wang
2019-05-03 10:42 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 11/17] arm: bpf: eliminate zero extension code-gen Jiong Wang
2019-05-03 10:42 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 12/17] powerpc: " Jiong Wang
2019-05-03 10:42 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 13/17] s390: " Jiong Wang
2019-05-03 13:41 ` Heiko Carstens
2019-05-03 13:50 ` Eric Dumazet
2019-05-03 14:09 ` Jiong Wang
2019-05-03 10:42 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 14/17] sparc: " Jiong Wang
2019-05-03 10:42 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 15/17] x32: " Jiong Wang
2019-05-03 10:42 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 16/17] riscv: " Jiong Wang
2019-05-03 10:42 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 17/17] nfp: " Jiong Wang
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=87v9yjk013.fsf@netronome.com \
--to=jiong.wang@netronome.com \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oss-drivers@netronome.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).