Re: [PATCH RFCv3 01/14] arm64: introduce aarch64_insn_gen_comp_branch_imm()

From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@plumgrid.com>
Cc: Zi Shen Lim <zlim.lnx@gmail.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@redhat.com>,
	"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@arm.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Jiang Liu <liuj97@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFCv3 01/14] arm64: introduce aarch64_insn_gen_comp_branch_imm()
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 18:25:26 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140717172526.GC4844@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMEtUux1NRqz-Bqi_H8kJe8x9u+1Q12Sg4a-92cE6OsePEBLxg@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 04:59:10PM +0100, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 2:19 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 10:19:31PM +0100, Zi Shen Lim wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Is a BUG_ON justifiable here? Is there not a nicer way to fail?
> >>
> >> In general, it'd be nice if we returned something like -EINVAL and
> >> have all callers handle failures. Today all code gen functions return
> >> the u32 instruction and there's no error handling by callers.
> >> I think following the precedence (aarch64_insn_gen_branch_imm())
> >> of failing with BUG_ON is a reasonable tradeoff.
> >
> > Well, I don't necessarily agree with that BUG_ON, either :)
> > I take it eBPF doesn't have a `trap' instruction or similar? Otherwise, we
> > could generate that and avoid having to propagate errors directly to the
> > caller.
> >
> >> In this case here, when we hit the default (failure) case, that means
> >> there's a serious error of attempting to use an unsupported
> >> variant. I think we're better off failing hard here than trying to
> >> arbitrarily "fallback" on a default choice.
> >
> > It might be a serious error for BPF, but a BUG_ON brings down the entire
> > machine, which I think is unfortunate.
> 
> There is some misunderstanding here. Here BUG_ON will trigger
> only on actual bug in JIT implementation, it cannot be triggered by user.
> eBPF program is verified before it reaches JIT, so all instructions are
> valid and input to JIT is proper. Two instruction are not yet
> implemented in this JIT and they trigger pr_.._once().
> So I don't see any issue with this usage of BUG_ON
> imo living with silent bugs in JIT is more dangerous.
> 
> For the same reason there is no 'trap' instruction in eBPF.
> Static verifier checks that program is valid. If there was a 'trap'
> insn the program would be rejected. Like programs with
> 'div by zero' are rejected. There is normal 'bpf_exit' insn to
> return from the program.

Ok, so assuming that BPF doesn't have any issues, I take your point.
However, we could very easily re-use these functions for things like SMP
alternatives and kprobes, where simply failing the instruction generation
might be acceptable.

It just feels like a bit hammer to me, when the machine is probably happily
scheduling user tasks, responding to interrupts, writing data to disk etc.

Will