From: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org
Cc: andrii@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, martin.lau@linux.dev,
kernel-team@fb.com, yonghong.song@linux.dev, kuniyu@amazon.com,
Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH bpf v3 0/2] check bpf_func_state->callback_depth when pruning states
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 17:41:19 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240222154121.6991-1-eddyz87@gmail.com> (raw)
This patch-set fixes bug in states pruning logic hit in mailing list
discussion [0]. The details of the fix are in patch #1.
The main idea for the fix belongs to Yonghong Song,
mine contribution is merely in review and test cases.
There are some changes in verification performance:
File Program Insns (DIFF) States (DIFF)
------------------------- ------------- --------------- --------------
pyperf600_bpf_loop.bpf.o on_event +15 (+0.42%) +0 (+0.00%)
strobemeta_bpf_loop.bpf.o on_event +857 (+37.95%) +60 (+38.96%)
xdp_synproxy_kern.bpf.o syncookie_tc +2892 (+30.39%) +109 (+36.33%)
xdp_synproxy_kern.bpf.o syncookie_xdp +2892 (+30.01%) +109 (+36.09%)
(when tested on a subset of selftests identified by
selftests/bpf/veristat.cfg and Cilium bpf object files from [4])
Changelog:
v2 [2] -> v3:
- fixes for verifier.c commit message as suggested by Yonghong;
- patch-set re-rerouted to 'bpf' tree as suggested in [2];
- patch for test_tcp_custom_syncookie is sent separately to 'bpf-next' [3].
- veristat results updated using 'bpf' tree as baseline and clang 16.
v1 [1] -> v2:
- patch #2 commit message updated to better reflect verifier behavior
with regards to checkpoints tree (suggested by Yonghong);
- veristat results added (suggested by Andrii).
[0] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/9b251840-7cb8-4d17-bd23-1fc8071d8eef@linux.dev/
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240212143832.28838-1-eddyz87@gmail.com/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240216150334.31937-1-eddyz87@gmail.com/
[3] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240222150300.14909-1-eddyz87@gmail.com/
[4] https://github.com/anakryiko/cilium
Eduard Zingerman (2):
bpf: check bpf_func_state->callback_depth when pruning states
selftests/bpf: test case for callback_depth states pruning logic
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 3 +
.../bpf/progs/verifier_iterating_callbacks.c | 70 +++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 73 insertions(+)
--
2.43.0
next reply other threads:[~2024-02-22 15:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-22 15:41 Eduard Zingerman [this message]
2024-02-22 15:41 ` [PATCH bpf v3 1/2] bpf: check bpf_func_state->callback_depth when pruning states Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-22 16:12 ` Yonghong Song
2024-02-22 15:41 ` [PATCH bpf v3 2/2] selftests/bpf: test case for callback_depth states pruning logic Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-22 17:10 ` [PATCH bpf v3 0/2] check bpf_func_state->callback_depth when pruning states patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
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=20240222154121.6991-1-eddyz87@gmail.com \
--to=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=kuniyu@amazon.com \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.