Re: [PATCH v3 bpf-next 05/13] bpf: support instructions arrays with constants blinding

[Anton Protopopov <a.s.protopopov@gmail.com>]

On 25/09/18 11:35PM, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> On Thu, 2025-09-18 at 09:38 +0000, Anton Protopopov wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > index a7ad4fe756da..5c1e4e37d1f8 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > @@ -21578,6 +21578,7 @@ static int jit_subprogs(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
> >  	struct bpf_insn *insn;
> >  	void *old_bpf_func;
> >  	int err, num_exentries;
> > +	int old_len, subprog_start_adjustment = 0;
> >  
> >  	if (env->subprog_cnt <= 1)
> >  		return 0;
> > @@ -21652,7 +21653,7 @@ static int jit_subprogs(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
> >  		func[i]->aux->func_idx = i;
> >  		/* Below members will be freed only at prog->aux */
> >  		func[i]->aux->btf = prog->aux->btf;
> > -		func[i]->aux->subprog_start = subprog_start;
> > +		func[i]->aux->subprog_start = subprog_start + subprog_start_adjustment;
> >  		func[i]->aux->func_info = prog->aux->func_info;
> >  		func[i]->aux->func_info_cnt = prog->aux->func_info_cnt;
> >  		func[i]->aux->poke_tab = prog->aux->poke_tab;
> > @@ -21705,7 +21706,15 @@ static int jit_subprogs(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
> >  		func[i]->aux->might_sleep = env->subprog_info[i].might_sleep;
> >  		if (!i)
> >  			func[i]->aux->exception_boundary = env->seen_exception;
> > +
> > +		/*
> > +		 * To properly pass the absolute subprog start to jit
> > +		 * all instruction adjustments should be accumulated
> > +		 */
> > +		old_len = func[i]->len;
> >  		func[i] = bpf_int_jit_compile(func[i]);
> > +		subprog_start_adjustment += func[i]->len - old_len;
> > +
> >  		if (!func[i]->jited) {
> >  			err = -ENOTSUPP;
> >  			goto out_free;
> 
> This change makes sense, however, would it be possible to move
> bpf_jit_blind_constants() out from jit to verifier.c:do_check,
> somewhere after do_misc_fixups?
> Looking at the source code, bpf_jit_blind_constants() is the first
> thing any bpf_int_jit_compile() does.
> Another alternative is to add adjust_subprog_starts() call to this
> function. Wdyt?

Yes, it makes total sense. Blinding was added to x86 jit initially and then
every other jit copy-pasted it.  I was considering to move blinding up some
time back (see https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20250318143318.656785-1-aspsk@isovalent.com/),
but then I've decided to avoid this, as this requires to patch every JIT, and I
am not sure what is the way to test such a change (any hints?)