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

[Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>]

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