Re: [PATCH] ppc: Fix BPF JIT for ABIv2

From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
To: "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, Matt Evans <matt@ozlabs.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@fb.com>,
	Denis Kirjanov <kda@linux-powerpc.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@in.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ppc: Fix BPF JIT for ABIv2
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:15:48 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1466507748.18876.3.camel@ellerman.id.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160621085807.GE8886@naverao1-tp.localdomain>

On Tue, 2016-06-21 at 14:28 +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
> On 2016/06/20 03:56PM, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 11:19:14PM +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
> > > On 2016/06/17 10:00AM, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Hi, Michael and Naveen.
> > > > 
> > > > I noticed independently that there is a problem with BPF JIT and ABIv2, and
> > > > worked out the patch below before I noticed Naveen's patchset and the latest
> > > > changes in ppc tree for a better way to check for ABI versions.
> > > > 
> > > > However, since the issue described below affect mainline and stable kernels,
> > > > would you consider applying it before merging your two patchsets, so that we can
> > > > more easily backport the fix?
> > > 
> > > Hi Cascardo,
> > > Given that this has been broken on ABIv2 since forever, I didn't bother 
> > > fixing it. But, I can see why this would be a good thing to have for 
> > > -stable and existing distros. However, while your patch below may fix 
> > > the crash you're seeing on ppc64le, it is not sufficient -- you'll need 
> > > changes in bpf_jit_asm.S as well.
> > 
> > Hi, Naveen.
> > 
> > Any tips on how to exercise possible issues there? Or what changes you think
> > would be sufficient?
> 
> The calling convention is different with ABIv2 and so we'll need changes 
> in bpf_slow_path_common() and sk_negative_common().

How big would those changes be? Do we know?

How come no one reported this was broken previously? This is the first I've
heard of it being broken.

> However, rather than enabling classic JIT for ppc64le, are we better off 
> just disabling it?
> 
> --- a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
> @@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ config PPC
>         select IRQ_FORCED_THREADING
>         select HAVE_RCU_TABLE_FREE if SMP
>         select HAVE_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINTS
> -       select HAVE_CBPF_JIT
> +       select HAVE_CBPF_JIT if CPU_BIG_ENDIAN
>         select HAVE_ARCH_JUMP_LABEL
>         select ARCH_HAVE_NMI_SAFE_CMPXCHG
>         select ARCH_HAS_GCOV_PROFILE_ALL
> 
> 
> Michael,
> Let me know your thoughts on whether you intend to take this patch or 
> Cascardo's patch for -stable before the eBPF patches. I can redo my 
> patches accordingly.

This patch sounds like the best option at the moment for something we can
backport. Unless the changes to fix it are minimal.

cheers