* Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/1] arm64: bpf: Add BPF exception tables [not found] ` <20200728152122.1292756-2-jean-philippe@linaro.org> @ 2020-07-30 12:28 ` Qian Cai 2020-07-30 14:22 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Qian Cai @ 2020-07-30 12:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jean-Philippe Brucker Cc: linux-arm-kernel, bpf, songliubraving, andriin, daniel, catalin.marinas, john.fastabend, ast, zlim.lnx, kpsingh, yhs, will, kafai, sfr, linux-next, linux-kernel On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 05:21:26PM +0200, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: > When a tracing BPF program attempts to read memory without using the > bpf_probe_read() helper, the verifier marks the load instruction with > the BPF_PROBE_MEM flag. Since the arm64 JIT does not currently recognize > this flag it falls back to the interpreter. > > Add support for BPF_PROBE_MEM, by appending an exception table to the > BPF program. If the load instruction causes a data abort, the fixup > infrastructure finds the exception table and fixes up the fault, by > clearing the destination register and jumping over the faulting > instruction. > > To keep the compact exception table entry format, inspect the pc in > fixup_exception(). A more generic solution would add a "handler" field > to the table entry, like on x86 and s390. > > Signed-off-by: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org> This will fail to compile on arm64, https://gitlab.com/cailca/linux-mm/-/blob/master/arm64.config arch/arm64/mm/extable.o: In function `fixup_exception': arch/arm64/mm/extable.c:19: undefined reference to `arm64_bpf_fixup_exception' > --- > Note: the extable is aligned on 32 bits. Given that extable entries have > 32-bit members I figured we don't need to align it to 64 bits. > --- > arch/arm64/include/asm/extable.h | 3 ++ > arch/arm64/mm/extable.c | 11 ++-- > arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 93 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > 3 files changed, 98 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/extable.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/extable.h > index 56a4f68b262e..bcee40df1586 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/extable.h > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/extable.h > @@ -22,5 +22,8 @@ struct exception_table_entry > > #define ARCH_HAS_RELATIVE_EXTABLE > > +int arm64_bpf_fixup_exception(const struct exception_table_entry *ex, > + struct pt_regs *regs); > + > extern int fixup_exception(struct pt_regs *regs); > #endif > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/extable.c b/arch/arm64/mm/extable.c > index 81e694af5f8c..1f42991cacdd 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/extable.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/extable.c > @@ -11,8 +11,13 @@ int fixup_exception(struct pt_regs *regs) > const struct exception_table_entry *fixup; > > fixup = search_exception_tables(instruction_pointer(regs)); > - if (fixup) > - regs->pc = (unsigned long)&fixup->fixup + fixup->fixup; > + if (!fixup) > + return 0; > > - return fixup != NULL; > + if (regs->pc >= BPF_JIT_REGION_START && > + regs->pc < BPF_JIT_REGION_END) > + return arm64_bpf_fixup_exception(fixup, regs); > + > + regs->pc = (unsigned long)&fixup->fixup + fixup->fixup; > + return 1; > } > diff --git a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c > index 3cb25b43b368..f8912e45be7a 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c > @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ > > #define pr_fmt(fmt) "bpf_jit: " fmt > > +#include <linux/bitfield.h> > #include <linux/bpf.h> > #include <linux/filter.h> > #include <linux/printk.h> > @@ -56,6 +57,7 @@ struct jit_ctx { > int idx; > int epilogue_offset; > int *offset; > + int exentry_idx; > __le32 *image; > u32 stack_size; > }; > @@ -351,6 +353,67 @@ static void build_epilogue(struct jit_ctx *ctx) > emit(A64_RET(A64_LR), ctx); > } > > +#define BPF_FIXUP_OFFSET_MASK GENMASK(26, 0) > +#define BPF_FIXUP_REG_MASK GENMASK(31, 27) > + > +int arm64_bpf_fixup_exception(const struct exception_table_entry *ex, > + struct pt_regs *regs) > +{ > + off_t offset = FIELD_GET(BPF_FIXUP_OFFSET_MASK, ex->fixup); > + int dst_reg = FIELD_GET(BPF_FIXUP_REG_MASK, ex->fixup); > + > + regs->regs[dst_reg] = 0; > + regs->pc = (unsigned long)&ex->fixup - offset; > + return 1; > +} > + [] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/1] arm64: bpf: Add BPF exception tables 2020-07-30 12:28 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/1] arm64: bpf: Add BPF exception tables Qian Cai @ 2020-07-30 14:22 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker 2020-07-30 19:47 ` Daniel Borkmann 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Jean-Philippe Brucker @ 2020-07-30 14:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Qian Cai Cc: linux-arm-kernel, bpf, songliubraving, andriin, daniel, catalin.marinas, john.fastabend, ast, zlim.lnx, kpsingh, yhs, will, kafai, sfr, linux-next, linux-kernel [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1499 bytes --] On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 08:28:56AM -0400, Qian Cai wrote: > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 05:21:26PM +0200, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: > > When a tracing BPF program attempts to read memory without using the > > bpf_probe_read() helper, the verifier marks the load instruction with > > the BPF_PROBE_MEM flag. Since the arm64 JIT does not currently recognize > > this flag it falls back to the interpreter. > > > > Add support for BPF_PROBE_MEM, by appending an exception table to the > > BPF program. If the load instruction causes a data abort, the fixup > > infrastructure finds the exception table and fixes up the fault, by > > clearing the destination register and jumping over the faulting > > instruction. > > > > To keep the compact exception table entry format, inspect the pc in > > fixup_exception(). A more generic solution would add a "handler" field > > to the table entry, like on x86 and s390. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org> > > This will fail to compile on arm64, > > https://gitlab.com/cailca/linux-mm/-/blob/master/arm64.config > > arch/arm64/mm/extable.o: In function `fixup_exception': > arch/arm64/mm/extable.c:19: undefined reference to `arm64_bpf_fixup_exception' Thanks for the report, I attached a fix. Daniel, can I squash it and resend as v2 or is it too late? I'd be more confident if my patches sat a little longer on the list so arm64 folks have a chance to review them. This isn't my first silly mistake... Thanks, Jean [-- Attachment #2: 0001-arm64-bpf-Fix-build-for-CONFIG_BPF_JIT.patch --] [-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1688 bytes --] From 17d0f041b57903cb2657dde15559cd1923498337 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 14:45:44 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] arm64: bpf: Fix build for !CONFIG_BPF_JIT Add a stub for arm64_bpf_fixup_exception() when CONFIG_BPF_JIT isn't enabled, and avoid the fixup in this case. Signed-off-by: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org> --- arch/arm64/include/asm/extable.h | 9 +++++++++ arch/arm64/mm/extable.c | 3 ++- 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/extable.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/extable.h index bcee40df1586..840a35ed92ec 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/extable.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/extable.h @@ -22,8 +22,17 @@ struct exception_table_entry #define ARCH_HAS_RELATIVE_EXTABLE +#ifdef CONFIG_BPF_JIT int arm64_bpf_fixup_exception(const struct exception_table_entry *ex, struct pt_regs *regs); +#else /* !CONFIG_BPF_JIT */ +static inline +int arm64_bpf_fixup_exception(const struct exception_table_entry *ex, + struct pt_regs *regs) +{ + return 0; +} +#endif /* !CONFIG_BPF_JIT */ extern int fixup_exception(struct pt_regs *regs); #endif diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/extable.c b/arch/arm64/mm/extable.c index 1f42991cacdd..eee1732ab6cd 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/mm/extable.c +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/extable.c @@ -14,7 +14,8 @@ int fixup_exception(struct pt_regs *regs) if (!fixup) return 0; - if (regs->pc >= BPF_JIT_REGION_START && + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BPF_JIT) && + regs->pc >= BPF_JIT_REGION_START && regs->pc < BPF_JIT_REGION_END) return arm64_bpf_fixup_exception(fixup, regs); -- 2.27.0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/1] arm64: bpf: Add BPF exception tables 2020-07-30 14:22 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker @ 2020-07-30 19:47 ` Daniel Borkmann 2020-07-30 21:14 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Daniel Borkmann @ 2020-07-30 19:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jean-Philippe Brucker, Qian Cai Cc: linux-arm-kernel, bpf, songliubraving, andriin, catalin.marinas, john.fastabend, ast, zlim.lnx, kpsingh, yhs, will, kafai, sfr, linux-next, linux-kernel On 7/30/20 4:22 PM, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 08:28:56AM -0400, Qian Cai wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 05:21:26PM +0200, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: >>> When a tracing BPF program attempts to read memory without using the >>> bpf_probe_read() helper, the verifier marks the load instruction with >>> the BPF_PROBE_MEM flag. Since the arm64 JIT does not currently recognize >>> this flag it falls back to the interpreter. >>> >>> Add support for BPF_PROBE_MEM, by appending an exception table to the >>> BPF program. If the load instruction causes a data abort, the fixup >>> infrastructure finds the exception table and fixes up the fault, by >>> clearing the destination register and jumping over the faulting >>> instruction. >>> >>> To keep the compact exception table entry format, inspect the pc in >>> fixup_exception(). A more generic solution would add a "handler" field >>> to the table entry, like on x86 and s390. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org> >> >> This will fail to compile on arm64, >> >> https://gitlab.com/cailca/linux-mm/-/blob/master/arm64.config >> >> arch/arm64/mm/extable.o: In function `fixup_exception': >> arch/arm64/mm/extable.c:19: undefined reference to `arm64_bpf_fixup_exception' > > Thanks for the report, I attached a fix. Daniel, can I squash it and > resend as v2 or is it too late? If you want I can squash your attached snippet into the original patch of yours. If you want to send a v2 that is fine as well of course. Let me know. Thanks, Daniel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/1] arm64: bpf: Add BPF exception tables 2020-07-30 19:47 ` Daniel Borkmann @ 2020-07-30 21:14 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker 2020-07-30 22:45 ` Daniel Borkmann 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Jean-Philippe Brucker @ 2020-07-30 21:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Daniel Borkmann Cc: Qian Cai, linux-arm-kernel, bpf, songliubraving, andriin, catalin.marinas, john.fastabend, ast, zlim.lnx, kpsingh, yhs, will, kafai, sfr, linux-next, linux-kernel On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 09:47:39PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 7/30/20 4:22 PM, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 08:28:56AM -0400, Qian Cai wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 05:21:26PM +0200, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: > > > > When a tracing BPF program attempts to read memory without using the > > > > bpf_probe_read() helper, the verifier marks the load instruction with > > > > the BPF_PROBE_MEM flag. Since the arm64 JIT does not currently recognize > > > > this flag it falls back to the interpreter. > > > > > > > > Add support for BPF_PROBE_MEM, by appending an exception table to the > > > > BPF program. If the load instruction causes a data abort, the fixup > > > > infrastructure finds the exception table and fixes up the fault, by > > > > clearing the destination register and jumping over the faulting > > > > instruction. > > > > > > > > To keep the compact exception table entry format, inspect the pc in > > > > fixup_exception(). A more generic solution would add a "handler" field > > > > to the table entry, like on x86 and s390. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org> > > > > > > This will fail to compile on arm64, > > > > > > https://gitlab.com/cailca/linux-mm/-/blob/master/arm64.config > > > > > > arch/arm64/mm/extable.o: In function `fixup_exception': > > > arch/arm64/mm/extable.c:19: undefined reference to `arm64_bpf_fixup_exception' > > > > Thanks for the report, I attached a fix. Daniel, can I squash it and > > resend as v2 or is it too late? > > If you want I can squash your attached snippet into the original patch of > yours. If you want to send a v2 that is fine as well of course. Let me know. Yes please squash it into the original patch, sorry for the mess Thanks, Jean ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/1] arm64: bpf: Add BPF exception tables 2020-07-30 21:14 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker @ 2020-07-30 22:45 ` Daniel Borkmann 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Daniel Borkmann @ 2020-07-30 22:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jean-Philippe Brucker Cc: Qian Cai, linux-arm-kernel, bpf, songliubraving, andriin, catalin.marinas, john.fastabend, ast, zlim.lnx, kpsingh, yhs, will, kafai, sfr, linux-next, linux-kernel On 7/30/20 11:14 PM, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 09:47:39PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote: >> On 7/30/20 4:22 PM, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 08:28:56AM -0400, Qian Cai wrote: >>>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 05:21:26PM +0200, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: >>>>> When a tracing BPF program attempts to read memory without using the >>>>> bpf_probe_read() helper, the verifier marks the load instruction with >>>>> the BPF_PROBE_MEM flag. Since the arm64 JIT does not currently recognize >>>>> this flag it falls back to the interpreter. >>>>> >>>>> Add support for BPF_PROBE_MEM, by appending an exception table to the >>>>> BPF program. If the load instruction causes a data abort, the fixup >>>>> infrastructure finds the exception table and fixes up the fault, by >>>>> clearing the destination register and jumping over the faulting >>>>> instruction. >>>>> >>>>> To keep the compact exception table entry format, inspect the pc in >>>>> fixup_exception(). A more generic solution would add a "handler" field >>>>> to the table entry, like on x86 and s390. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org> >>>> >>>> This will fail to compile on arm64, >>>> >>>> https://gitlab.com/cailca/linux-mm/-/blob/master/arm64.config >>>> >>>> arch/arm64/mm/extable.o: In function `fixup_exception': >>>> arch/arm64/mm/extable.c:19: undefined reference to `arm64_bpf_fixup_exception' >>> >>> Thanks for the report, I attached a fix. Daniel, can I squash it and >>> resend as v2 or is it too late? >> >> If you want I can squash your attached snippet into the original patch of >> yours. If you want to send a v2 that is fine as well of course. Let me know. > > Yes please squash it into the original patch, sorry for the mess Done, thanks! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-07-30 22:45 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- [not found] <20200728152122.1292756-1-jean-philippe@linaro.org> [not found] ` <20200728152122.1292756-2-jean-philippe@linaro.org> 2020-07-30 12:28 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/1] arm64: bpf: Add BPF exception tables Qian Cai 2020-07-30 14:22 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker 2020-07-30 19:47 ` Daniel Borkmann 2020-07-30 21:14 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker 2020-07-30 22:45 ` Daniel Borkmann
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).