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=-10.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_GIT 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 894B8C07E96 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 2021 00:35:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EA0B6100B for ; Mon, 12 Jul 2021 00:35:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229793AbhGLAiR (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jul 2021 20:38:17 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:33276 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229660AbhGLAiR (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jul 2021 20:38:17 -0400 Received: from mail-pj1-x1034.google.com (mail-pj1-x1034.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1034]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC6FBC0613DD; Sun, 11 Jul 2021 17:35:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x1034.google.com with SMTP id n11so9135768pjo.1; Sun, 11 Jul 2021 17:35:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=vfgi8rSUdhyhOK+TTG6OcDruFXlt3xOVYmVmmsxO3OY=; b=VMHcyNWhdWyJEyRjEoXABEXH1og6tNvxLu84t9qbomaG48qn7vgQ2av6nwKn+qxPI5 kSVUmXqsyt7QxzpNKWtGy2svo05WI0JKrxHPhTYP/nb5bR7YBPJ7GULUpiq1liEs7jXV tqs04nj/A+3T4Y/1ILi1cF6EkELhR828aXlY8Y4t+0/wJS94ceojIv2V4nChmoX9KAOe JPk8PS7TEBkUP7KApO6GJO+UpS/hcr2PVk1SeAgpKSeilbrVDdi/dce8iZnR9jq0evNH uYB+8VKgsJ2vl6haDotokgZZb+NB+A96EsYizgyGru/hn5A3U701+z/OAXZk21CnIzuj aejg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=vfgi8rSUdhyhOK+TTG6OcDruFXlt3xOVYmVmmsxO3OY=; b=D98ymaFpSTOR3zOlrdgys7apqFGh9qBHHWtqy1lPpjppSyqEpxrodXhvU0IwHu8Hiq m6GZnaTRsb3V17AV4TZbIp6TiI+kBKt2hed8cQ4LCHpVWBKSC9fTQbGV5ThwkGa72JqB mC6op0WibSdBl54rxDpLS6EalIh6QZhBYsUOXh9NrQG+O5ers9UQn5XXtIL5Ifeu8HVT 8sNIOcQs9k+zwzQJ0+RAbyGOSHUQWMTjKPjfmjlxczQ+mMTUzntfdRMa9iJJ6tVHHgrL 9egZbg8kLixaGvdEml7eb8eOWbVueQ3+DajfoZsYJevbaz2LOteHPzT/el0Ma4NfhGj0 OprA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531qipINxJqe1ySJKsgsWxN+DgEor14ntdBa1tr8nbb1OJkWNCRU XxK875nUohfJ+wkVMrDZcbM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxOhaWBhv0i+ISUeOqU2Ho9jiY/LUGAer9OhLDKcWEH7/gMQMQf1FVXrQltJHU94GmBwzQ0Sg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:f243:b029:129:5706:3c4b with SMTP id j3-20020a170902f243b029012957063c4bmr41150209plc.83.1626050128226; Sun, 11 Jul 2021 17:35:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([2001:470:e92d:10:4039:6c0e:1168:cc74]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c24sm15588447pgj.11.2021.07.11.17.35.27 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 11 Jul 2021 17:35:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Tony Ambardar X-Google-Original-From: Tony Ambardar To: Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , Andrii Nakryiko , Thomas Bogendoerfer , Paul Burton Cc: Tony Ambardar , netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, Johan Almbladh , Hassan Naveed , David Daney , Luke Nelson , Serge Semin , Martin KaFai Lau , Song Liu , Yonghong Song , John Fastabend , KP Singh Subject: [RFC PATCH bpf-next v1 00/14] MIPS: eBPF: refactor code, add MIPS32 JIT Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2021 17:34:46 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.25.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-mips@vger.kernel.org Greetings! This patch series adds an eBPF JIT for MIPS32. The approach taken first updates existing code to support MIPS64/MIPS32 systems, then refactors source into a common core and dependent MIPS64 JIT, and finally adds a MIPS32 eBPF JIT implementation using the common framework. Compared to writing a standalone MIPS32 JIT, this approach has benefits for long-term maintainability, but has taken much longer than expected. This RFC posting is intended to share progress, gather feedback, and raise some questions with BPF and MIPS experts (which I'll cover later). Code Overview ============= The initial code updates and refactoring exposed a number of problems in the existing MIPS64 JIT, which the first several patches fix. Patch #11 updates common code to support MIPS64/MIPS32 operation. Patch #12 separates the common core from the MIPS64 JIT code. Patch #13 adds a needed MIPS32 uasm opcode, while patch #14 adds the MIPS32 eBPF JIT. On MIPS32, 64-bit BPF registers are mapped to 32-bit register pairs, and all 64-bit operations are built on 32-bit subregister ops. The MIPS32 tailcall counter is stored on the stack however. Notable changes from the MIPS64 JIT include: * BPF_JMP32: implement all conditionals * BPF_JMP | JSET | BPF_K: drop bbit insns only usable on MIPS64 Octeon Since MIPS32 does not include 64-bit div/mod or atomic opcodes, these BPF insns are implemented by directly calling the built-in kernel functions: (with thanks to Luke Nelson for posting similar code online) * BPF_STX | BPF_DW | BPF_XADD * BPF_ALU64 | BPF_DIV | BPF_X * BPF_ALU64 | BPF_DIV | BPF_K * BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOD | BPF_X * BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOD | BPF_K Testing ======= Testing used LTS kernel 5.10.x and stable 5.13.x running under QEMU. The test suite included the 'test_bpf' module and 'test_verifier' from kselftests. Using 'test_progs' from kselftests is too difficult in general since cross-compilation depends on libbpf/bpftool, which does not support cross-endian builds. The matrix of test configurations executed for this series covered the expected register sizes, MIPS ISA releases, and JIT settings: WORDSIZE={64-bit,32-bit} x ISA={R2,R6} x JIT={off,on,hardened} On MIPS32BE and MIPS32LE there was general parity between the results of interpreter vs. JIT-backed tests with respect to the numbers of PASSED, SKIPPED, and FAILED tests. The same was also true of MIPS64 retesting. For example, the results below on MIPS32 are typical. Note that skipped tests 854 and 855 are "scale" tests which result in OOM on the QEMU malta MIPS32 test systems. root@OpenWrt:~# sysctl net.core.bpf_jit_enable=1 root@OpenWrt:~# modprobe test_bpf ... test_bpf: Summary: 378 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [366/366 JIT'ed] root@OpenWrt:~# ./test_verifier 0 853 ... Summary: 1127 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 89 FAILED root@OpenWrt:~# ./test_verifier 855 1149 ... Summary: 408 PASSED, 7 SKIPPED, 53 FAILED Open Questions ============== 1. As seen in the patch series, the static analysis used by the MIPS64 JIT tends to be fragile in the face of verifier, insn and patching changes. After tracking down and fixing several related bugs, I wonder if it were better to remove the static analysis and leave things more robust and maintainable going forward. Paul, Thomas, David, what are your views? Do you have thoughts on how best to do this? Would it be possible to replace the static analysis by accessing verifier analysis results from a JIT? Daniel, Alexei, or Andrii? 2. The series tries to correctly handle tailcall counter across bpf2bpf and tailcalls, and it would be nice to properly support mixing these, but this is still a WIP for me. Much of what I've read seems very specific to the x86_64 JIT. Is there a good summary of the required changes for a JIT in general? Note: I built a MIPS32LE 'test_progs' after some horrible, ugly hacking, and the 'tailcall' tests pass but the 'tailcall_bpf2bpf' tests fail cryptically. I can send a log and strace if someone helpful could kindly take a look. Is there an alternative, good standalone test available? Possible Next Steps =================== 1. Implementing the new BPF_ATOMIC insns *should* be straightforward on MIPS32. I'm less certain of MIPS64 given the static analysis and related zext/sext logic. 2. The BPF_JMP32 class is another big gap on MIPS64. Has anyone looked at this before? It also ties to the static analysis, but on first glance appears feasible. Thanks in advance for any feedback or suggestions! Tony Ambardar (14): MIPS: eBPF: support BPF_TAIL_CALL in JIT static analysis MIPS: eBPF: mask 32-bit index for tail calls MIPS: eBPF: fix BPF_ALU|ARSH handling in JIT static analysis MIPS: eBPF: support BPF_JMP32 in JIT static analysis MIPS: eBPF: fix system hang with verifier dead-code patching MIPS: eBPF: fix JIT static analysis hang with bounded loops MIPS: eBPF: fix MOD64 insn on R6 ISA MIPS: eBPF: support long jump for BPF_JMP|EXIT MIPS: eBPF: drop src_reg restriction in BPF_LD|BPF_DW|BPF_IMM MIPS: eBPF: improve and clarify enum 'which_ebpf_reg' MIPS: eBPF: add core support for 32/64-bit systems MIPS: eBPF: refactor common MIPS64/MIPS32 functions and headers MIPS: uasm: Enable muhu opcode for MIPS R6 MIPS: eBPF: add MIPS32 JIT Documentation/admin-guide/sysctl/net.rst | 6 +- Documentation/networking/filter.rst | 6 +- arch/mips/Kconfig | 4 +- arch/mips/include/asm/uasm.h | 1 + arch/mips/mm/uasm-mips.c | 4 +- arch/mips/mm/uasm.c | 3 +- arch/mips/net/Makefile | 8 +- arch/mips/net/ebpf_jit.c | 1935 ---------------------- arch/mips/net/ebpf_jit.h | 295 ++++ arch/mips/net/ebpf_jit_comp32.c | 1241 ++++++++++++++ arch/mips/net/ebpf_jit_comp64.c | 987 +++++++++++ arch/mips/net/ebpf_jit_core.c | 1118 +++++++++++++ 12 files changed, 3663 insertions(+), 1945 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 arch/mips/net/ebpf_jit.c create mode 100644 arch/mips/net/ebpf_jit.h create mode 100644 arch/mips/net/ebpf_jit_comp32.c create mode 100644 arch/mips/net/ebpf_jit_comp64.c create mode 100644 arch/mips/net/ebpf_jit_core.c -- 2.25.1