linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: YiFei Zhu <yifeifz2@illinois.edu>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
	Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>,
	Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.pizza>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
	Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
	Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@redhat.com>,
	Tobin Feldman-Fitzthum <tobin@ibm.com>,
	Dimitrios Skarlatos <dskarlat@cs.cmu.edu>,
	Valentin Rothberg <vrothber@redhat.com>,
	Hubertus Franke <frankeh@us.ibm.com>,
	Jack Chen <jianyan2@illinois.edu>,
	Josep Torrellas <torrella@illinois.edu>,
	Tianyin Xu <tyxu@illinois.edu>,
	bpf@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 5/6] selftests/seccomp: Compare bitmap vs filter overhead
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 16:29:22 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200923232923.3142503-6-keescook@chromium.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200923232923.3142503-1-keescook@chromium.org>

As part of the seccomp benchmarking, include the expectations with
regard to the timing behavior of the constant action bitmaps, and report
inconsistencies better.

Example output with constant action bitmaps on x86:

$ sudo ./seccomp_benchmark 30344920
Current BPF sysctl settings:
net.core.bpf_jit_enable = 1
net.core.bpf_jit_harden = 0
Benchmarking 30344920 syscalls...
22.113430452 - 0.005691205 = 22107739247 (22.1s)
getpid native: 728 ns
44.867669556 - 22.113755935 = 22753913621 (22.8s)
getpid RET_ALLOW 1 filter (bitmap): 749 ns
67.649040358 - 44.868003056 = 22781037302 (22.8s)
getpid RET_ALLOW 2 filters (bitmap): 750 ns
92.555661414 - 67.650328959 = 24905332455 (24.9s)
getpid RET_ALLOW 3 filters (full): 820 ns
118.170831065 - 92.556057543 = 25614773522 (25.6s)
getpid RET_ALLOW 4 filters (full): 844 ns
Estimated total seccomp overhead for 1 bitmapped filter: 21 ns
Estimated total seccomp overhead for 2 bitmapped filters: 22 ns
Estimated total seccomp overhead for 3 full filters: 92 ns
Estimated total seccomp overhead for 4 full filters: 116 ns
Estimated seccomp entry overhead: 20 ns
Estimated seccomp per-filter overhead (last 2 diff): 24 ns
Estimated seccomp per-filter overhead (filters / 4): 24 ns
Expectations:
        native ≤ 1 bitmap (728 ≤ 749): ✔️
        native ≤ 1 filter (728 ≤ 820): ✔️
        per-filter (last 2 diff) ≈ per-filter (filters / 4) (24 ≈ 24): ✔️
        1 bitmapped ≈ 2 bitmapped (21 ≈ 22): ✔️
        entry ≈ 1 bitmapped (20 ≈ 21): ✔️
        entry ≈ 2 bitmapped (20 ≈ 22): ✔️
        native + entry + (per filter * 4) ≈ 4 filters total (844 ≈ 844): ✔️

Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
---
 .../selftests/seccomp/seccomp_benchmark.c     | 151 +++++++++++++++---
 tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/settings      |   2 +-
 2 files changed, 130 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_benchmark.c b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_benchmark.c
index 91f5a89cadac..fcc806585266 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_benchmark.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_benchmark.c
@@ -4,12 +4,16 @@
  */
 #define _GNU_SOURCE
 #include <assert.h>
+#include <limits.h>
+#include <stdbool.h>
+#include <stddef.h>
 #include <stdio.h>
 #include <stdlib.h>
 #include <time.h>
 #include <unistd.h>
 #include <linux/filter.h>
 #include <linux/seccomp.h>
+#include <sys/param.h>
 #include <sys/prctl.h>
 #include <sys/syscall.h>
 #include <sys/types.h>
@@ -70,18 +74,74 @@ unsigned long long calibrate(void)
 	return samples * seconds;
 }
 
+bool approx(int i_one, int i_two)
+{
+	double one = i_one, one_bump = one * 0.01;
+	double two = i_two, two_bump = two * 0.01;
+
+	one_bump = one + MAX(one_bump, 2.0);
+	two_bump = two + MAX(two_bump, 2.0);
+
+	/* Equal to, or within 1% or 2 digits */
+	if (one == two ||
+	    (one > two && one <= two_bump) ||
+	    (two > one && two <= one_bump))
+		return true;
+	return false;
+}
+
+bool le(int i_one, int i_two)
+{
+	if (i_one <= i_two)
+		return true;
+	return false;
+}
+
+long compare(const char *name_one, const char *name_eval, const char *name_two,
+	     unsigned long long one, bool (*eval)(int, int), unsigned long long two)
+{
+	bool good;
+
+	printf("\t%s %s %s (%lld %s %lld): ", name_one, name_eval, name_two,
+	       (long long)one, name_eval, (long long)two);
+	if (one > INT_MAX) {
+		printf("Miscalculation! Measurement went negative: %lld\n", (long long)one);
+		return 1;
+	}
+	if (two > INT_MAX) {
+		printf("Miscalculation! Measurement went negative: %lld\n", (long long)two);
+		return 1;
+	}
+
+	good = eval(one, two);
+	printf("%s\n", good ? "✔️" : "❌");
+
+	return good ? 0 : 1;
+}
+
 int main(int argc, char *argv[])
 {
+	struct sock_filter bitmap_filter[] = {
+		BPF_STMT(BPF_LD|BPF_W|BPF_ABS, offsetof(struct seccomp_data, nr)),
+		BPF_STMT(BPF_RET|BPF_K, SECCOMP_RET_ALLOW),
+	};
+	struct sock_fprog bitmap_prog = {
+		.len = (unsigned short)ARRAY_SIZE(bitmap_filter),
+		.filter = bitmap_filter,
+	};
 	struct sock_filter filter[] = {
+		BPF_STMT(BPF_LD|BPF_W|BPF_ABS, offsetof(struct seccomp_data, args[0])),
 		BPF_STMT(BPF_RET|BPF_K, SECCOMP_RET_ALLOW),
 	};
 	struct sock_fprog prog = {
 		.len = (unsigned short)ARRAY_SIZE(filter),
 		.filter = filter,
 	};
-	long ret;
-	unsigned long long samples;
-	unsigned long long native, filter1, filter2;
+
+	long ret, bits;
+	unsigned long long samples, calc;
+	unsigned long long native, filter1, filter2, bitmap1, bitmap2;
+	unsigned long long entry, per_filter1, per_filter2;
 
 	printf("Current BPF sysctl settings:\n");
 	system("sysctl net.core.bpf_jit_enable");
@@ -101,35 +161,82 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
 	ret = prctl(PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS, 1, 0, 0, 0);
 	assert(ret == 0);
 
-	/* One filter */
-	ret = prctl(PR_SET_SECCOMP, SECCOMP_MODE_FILTER, &prog);
+	/* One filter resulting in a bitmap */
+	ret = prctl(PR_SET_SECCOMP, SECCOMP_MODE_FILTER, &bitmap_prog);
 	assert(ret == 0);
 
-	filter1 = timing(CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID, samples) / samples;
-	printf("getpid RET_ALLOW 1 filter: %llu ns\n", filter1);
+	bitmap1 = timing(CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID, samples) / samples;
+	printf("getpid RET_ALLOW 1 filter (bitmap): %llu ns\n", bitmap1);
+
+	/* Second filter resulting in a bitmap */
+	ret = prctl(PR_SET_SECCOMP, SECCOMP_MODE_FILTER, &bitmap_prog);
+	assert(ret == 0);
 
-	if (filter1 == native)
-		printf("No overhead measured!? Try running again with more samples.\n");
+	bitmap2 = timing(CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID, samples) / samples;
+	printf("getpid RET_ALLOW 2 filters (bitmap): %llu ns\n", bitmap2);
 
-	/* Two filters */
+	/* Third filter, can no longer be converted to bitmap */
 	ret = prctl(PR_SET_SECCOMP, SECCOMP_MODE_FILTER, &prog);
 	assert(ret == 0);
 
-	filter2 = timing(CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID, samples) / samples;
-	printf("getpid RET_ALLOW 2 filters: %llu ns\n", filter2);
-
-	/* Calculations */
-	printf("Estimated total seccomp overhead for 1 filter: %llu ns\n",
-		filter1 - native);
+	filter1 = timing(CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID, samples) / samples;
+	printf("getpid RET_ALLOW 3 filters (full): %llu ns\n", filter1);
 
-	printf("Estimated total seccomp overhead for 2 filters: %llu ns\n",
-		filter2 - native);
+	/* Fourth filter, can not be converted to bitmap because of filter 3 */
+	ret = prctl(PR_SET_SECCOMP, SECCOMP_MODE_FILTER, &bitmap_prog);
+	assert(ret == 0);
 
-	printf("Estimated seccomp per-filter overhead: %llu ns\n",
-		filter2 - filter1);
+	filter2 = timing(CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID, samples) / samples;
+	printf("getpid RET_ALLOW 4 filters (full): %llu ns\n", filter2);
+
+	/* Estimations */
+#define ESTIMATE(fmt, var, what)	do {			\
+		var = (what);					\
+		printf("Estimated " fmt ": %llu ns\n", var);	\
+		if (var > INT_MAX)				\
+			goto more_samples;			\
+	} while (0)
+
+	ESTIMATE("total seccomp overhead for 1 bitmapped filter", calc,
+		 bitmap1 - native);
+	ESTIMATE("total seccomp overhead for 2 bitmapped filters", calc,
+		 bitmap2 - native);
+	ESTIMATE("total seccomp overhead for 3 full filters", calc,
+		 filter1 - native);
+	ESTIMATE("total seccomp overhead for 4 full filters", calc,
+		 filter2 - native);
+	ESTIMATE("seccomp entry overhead", entry,
+		 bitmap1 - native - (bitmap2 - bitmap1));
+	ESTIMATE("seccomp per-filter overhead (last 2 diff)", per_filter1,
+		 filter2 - filter1);
+	ESTIMATE("seccomp per-filter overhead (filters / 4)", per_filter2,
+		 (filter2 - native - entry) / 4);
+
+	printf("Expectations:\n");
+	ret |= compare("native", "≤", "1 bitmap", native, le, bitmap1);
+	bits = compare("native", "≤", "1 filter", native, le, filter1);
+	if (bits)
+		goto more_samples;
+
+	ret |= compare("per-filter (last 2 diff)", "≈", "per-filter (filters / 4)",
+			per_filter1, approx, per_filter2);
+
+	bits = compare("1 bitmapped", "≈", "2 bitmapped",
+			bitmap1 - native, approx, bitmap2 - native);
+	if (bits) {
+		printf("Skipping constant action bitmap expectations: they appear unsupported.\n");
+		goto out;
+	}
 
-	printf("Estimated seccomp entry overhead: %llu ns\n",
-		filter1 - native - (filter2 - filter1));
+	ret |= compare("entry", "≈", "1 bitmapped", entry, approx, bitmap1 - native);
+	ret |= compare("entry", "≈", "2 bitmapped", entry, approx, bitmap2 - native);
+	ret |= compare("native + entry + (per filter * 4)", "≈", "4 filters total",
+			entry + (per_filter1 * 4) + native, approx, filter2);
+	if (ret == 0)
+		goto out;
 
+more_samples:
+	printf("Saw unexpected benchmark result. Try running again with more samples?\n");
+out:
 	return 0;
 }
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/settings b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/settings
index ba4d85f74cd6..6091b45d226b 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/settings
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/settings
@@ -1 +1 @@
-timeout=90
+timeout=120
-- 
2.25.1


  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-09-23 23:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-09-23 23:29 [PATCH v1 0/6] seccomp: Implement constant action bitmaps Kees Cook
2020-09-23 23:29 ` [PATCH 1/6] seccomp: Introduce SECCOMP_PIN_ARCHITECTURE Kees Cook
2020-09-24  0:41   ` Jann Horn
2020-09-24  7:11     ` Kees Cook
2020-09-23 23:29 ` [PATCH 2/6] x86: Enable seccomp architecture tracking Kees Cook
2020-09-24  0:45   ` Jann Horn
2020-09-24  7:12     ` Kees Cook
2020-09-23 23:29 ` [PATCH 3/6] seccomp: Implement constant action bitmaps Kees Cook
2020-09-24  0:25   ` Jann Horn
2020-09-24  7:36     ` Kees Cook
2020-09-24  8:07       ` YiFei Zhu
2020-09-24  8:15         ` Kees Cook
2020-09-24  8:22           ` YiFei Zhu
2020-09-24 12:28       ` Jann Horn
2020-09-24 12:37         ` David Laight
2020-09-24 12:56           ` Jann Horn
     [not found]   ` <DM6PR11MB271492D0565E91475D949F5DEF390@DM6PR11MB2714.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
2020-09-24  0:36     ` YiFei Zhu
2020-09-24  7:38       ` Kees Cook
2020-09-24  7:51         ` YiFei Zhu
2020-09-23 23:29 ` [PATCH 4/6] seccomp: Emulate basic filters for constant action results Kees Cook
2020-09-23 23:47   ` Jann Horn
2020-09-24  7:46     ` Kees Cook
2020-09-24 15:28       ` Paul Moore
2020-09-24 19:52         ` Kees Cook
2020-09-24 20:46           ` Paul Moore
2020-09-24 21:35             ` Kees Cook
2020-09-23 23:29 ` Kees Cook [this message]
2020-09-23 23:29 ` [PATCH 6/6] [DEBUG] seccomp: Report bitmap coverage ranges Kees Cook
2020-09-24 13:40 ` [PATCH v1 0/6] seccomp: Implement constant action bitmaps Rasmus Villemoes
2020-09-24 13:58   ` YiFei Zhu
2020-09-25  5:56     ` Rasmus Villemoes
2020-09-25  7:07       ` YiFei Zhu
2020-09-26 18:11         ` YiFei Zhu
2020-09-28 20:04           ` Kees Cook
2020-09-28 20:16             ` YiFei Zhu
2020-09-24 14:05   ` Jann Horn
2020-09-24 18:57 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2020-09-24 19:18   ` Jann Horn
     [not found]   ` <9dbe8e3bbdad43a1872202ff38c34ca2@DM5PR11MB1692.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
2020-09-24 19:48     ` Tianyin Xu
2020-09-24 20:00   ` Kees Cook

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=20200923232923.3142503-6-keescook@chromium.org \
    --to=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=christian.brauner@ubuntu.com \
    --cc=containers@lists.linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=dskarlat@cs.cmu.edu \
    --cc=frankeh@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=gscrivan@redhat.com \
    --cc=jannh@google.com \
    --cc=jianyan2@illinois.edu \
    --cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=luto@amacapital.net \
    --cc=tobin@ibm.com \
    --cc=torrella@illinois.edu \
    --cc=tycho@tycho.pizza \
    --cc=tyxu@illinois.edu \
    --cc=vrothber@redhat.com \
    --cc=wad@chromium.org \
    --cc=yifeifz2@illinois.edu \
    /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).