From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
To: Andreas Steinmetz <ast@domdv.de>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>,
Edward Cree <ecree@solarflare.com>
Cc: bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: eBPF verifier slowness, more than 2 cpu seconds for about 600 instructions
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 12:38:46 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAADnVQ+CPP+tFR_9fh-omxQoJXqkuz3OV-MDSqjEDsVGnMXi3A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190618214028.y2qzbtonozr5cc7a@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 2:40 PM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 11:26:28AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 11:59 PM Alexei Starovoitov
> > <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 6:31 PM Andreas Steinmetz <ast@domdv.de> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Below is the source in question. It may look a bit strange but I
> > > > had to extract it from the project and preset parameters to fixed
> > > > values.
> > > > It takes from 2.8 to 4.5 seconds to load, depending on the processor.
> > > > Just compile and run the code below.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the report.
> > > It's interesting one indeed.
> > > 600+ instructions consume
> > > processed 280464 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 15
> > > total_states 87341 peak_states 580 mark_read 45
> > >
> > > The verifier finds a lot of different ways to go through branches
> > > in the program and majority of the states are not equivalent and
> > > do not help pruning, so it's doing full brute force walk of all possible
> > > combinations.
> > > We need to figure out whether there is a way to make it smarter.
> >
> > btw my pending backtracking logic helps it quite a bit:
> > processed 164110 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 11
> > total_states 13398 peak_states 349 mark_read 10
> >
> > and it's 2x faster to verify, but 164k insns processed shows that
> > there is still room for improvement.
>
> Hi Andreas,
>
> Could you please create selftests/bpf/verifier/.c out of it?
> Currently we don't have a single test that exercises the verifier this way.
> Could you also annotate instructions with comments like you did
> at the top of your file?
Andreas, ping.
> The program logic is interesting.
> If my understanding of assembler is correct it has unrolled
> parsing of ipv6 extension headers. Then unrolled parsing of tcp options.
> The way the program is using packet pointers forces the verifier to try
> all possible combinations of extension headers and tcp options.
>
> The precise backtracking logic helps to reduce amount of walking.
> Also I think it's safe to reduce precision of variable part
> of packet pointers. The following patch on top of bounded loop
> series help to reduce it further.
>
> Original:
> processed 280464 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 15
> total_states 87341 peak_states 580 mark_read 45
>
> Backtracking:
> processed 164110 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 11
> total_states 13398 peak_states 349 mark_read 10
>
> Backtracking + pkt_ptr var precision:
> processed 96739 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 11
> total_states 7891 peak_states 329 mark_read 10
>
> The patch helps w/o backtracking as well:
> processed 165254 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 15
> total_states 51434 peak_states 572 mark_read 45
>
> Backtracking and bounded loop heuristics reduce total memory
> consumption quite a bit. Which was nice to see.
>
> Anyway would be great if you could create a test out of it.
> Would be even more awesome if you convert it to C code
> and try to use bounded loops to parse extension headers
> and tcp options. That would be a true test for both loops
> and 'reduce precision' features.
>
> Thanks!
>
> From 4681224057af73335de0fdd629a2149bad91d59d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
> Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 13:40:29 -0700
> Subject: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: relax tracking of variable offset in packet pointers
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
> ---
> kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index d2c8a6677ac4..e37c69ad57b3 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -3730,6 +3730,27 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
> dst_reg->id = ++env->id_gen;
> /* something was added to pkt_ptr, set range to zero */
> dst_reg->raw = 0;
> + if (bpf_prog_is_dev_bound(env->prog->aux))
> + /* nfp offload needs accurate max_pkt_offset */
> + break;
> + if (env->strict_alignment)
> + break;
> + /* scalar added to pkt pointer is within BPF_MAX_VAR_OFF bounds.
> + * 64-bit pkt_data pointer can be safely compared with pkt_data_end
> + * even on 32-bit architectures.
> + * In case this scalar was positive the verifier
> + * doesn't need to track it precisely.
> + */
> + if (dst_reg->smin_value >= 0)
> + /* clear variable part of pkt pointer */
> + __mark_reg_known_zero(dst_reg);
> + /* no need to clear dst_reg->off.
> + * It's a known part of the pointer.
> + * When this pkt_ptr compared with pkt_end
> + * the 'range' will be initialized from 'off' and
> + * *(u8*)(dst_reg - off) is still more than packet start,
> + * since unknown value was positive.
> + */
> }
> break;
> case BPF_SUB:
> --
> 2.20.0
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-26 19:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <f0179a5f61ecd32efcea10ae05eb6aa3a151f791.camel@domdv.de>
[not found] ` <CAADnVQLmrF579H6-TAdMK8wDM9eUz2rP3F6LmhkSW4yuVKJnPg@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <e9f7226d1066cb0e86b60ad3d84cf7908f12a1cc.camel@domdv.de>
[not found] ` <CAADnVQKJr-=gZM2hAG-Zi3WA3oxSU_S6Nh54qG+z6Bi8m2e3PA@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <9917583f188315a5e6f961146c65b3d8371cc05e.camel@domdv.de>
[not found] ` <CAADnVQKe7RYNJXRQYuu4O_rL0YpAHe-ZrWPDL9gq_mRa6dkxMg@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <CAADnVQ+wEdHKR2zR+E6vNQV_J8gfBmReYsLUQ2tegpX8ZFO=2A@mail.gmail.com>
2019-06-18 21:40 ` eBPF verifier slowness, more than 2 cpu seconds for about 600 instructions Alexei Starovoitov
2019-06-21 8:36 ` 6c409a3aee: kernel_selftests.bpf.test_verifier.fail kernel test robot
2019-06-21 15:52 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-06-24 0:43 ` Rong Chen
2019-06-26 19:38 ` Alexei Starovoitov [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAADnVQ+CPP+tFR_9fh-omxQoJXqkuz3OV-MDSqjEDsVGnMXi3A@mail.gmail.com \
--to=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=andriin@fb.com \
--cc=ast@domdv.de \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=ecree@solarflare.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).