From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86CFDC43461 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 12:35:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4517420756 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 12:35:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="EJgZfMAq" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726183AbgINMfn (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Sep 2020 08:35:43 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:48384 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726529AbgINMfJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Sep 2020 08:35:09 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-x342.google.com (mail-wm1-x342.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::342]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FA84C061354 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 05:35:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm1-x342.google.com with SMTP id d4so5099098wmd.5 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 05:35:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=2zx71sFzS5A0DEXA6U2Jm678c9TY5P6KYJ8YTKByEfI=; b=EJgZfMAqGf0Ke1w9zk+TN+3twSdqnwsiX9rJaKMUuhjUUKFeWGJUjoUocS+tWr1cBM 7r5EvObHXB3vblbmKqoEAaEG7iq9oUydhb9tvshrk33ebcHym5cAkAjw42GuzBBp1cjH RazSTxkqWZ+5+BOeyUws8zWMXZ0cJcIXEUMYc3od5L0kWrTbhToIQzBR6uelGysYr45w 0ZMbmb02llA3XydJs3TIH06CnWAvFrs6O8syIl2gDufYNdzzEzb4PE6QxrYUxmbHCo2O 3B+XxmLqGZIkH1sJj7wfc4R/WFMe6LLloiAxDYB39EZQHvu3MUvNYWiSW52MI58T8/YK GMyg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=2zx71sFzS5A0DEXA6U2Jm678c9TY5P6KYJ8YTKByEfI=; b=LZkYlNXeDuETPxhkgrAeMafvFP52fxqDwyKT4DNeEZ8TZMLcLcQ8WpDIkvrda3da+A 0gJ65nAeT+sjc2gzb37xomsfwBIFAMnoCk01x4v6nif8HI1ajmoxn7HqafzLPWUArBVA L3o/n3ezHBmnZiguFXDdAjLLCcXrMD2B3TagPZZxpyFI2s1tv6qp90+0VuC90pr/eScC RHyfAEhYI6QzOqOFVmoy2WFYlJqKe6DHbGkEICwMac3fapIOAG+XtuOBzH1eKuri+UdP 9kCISbEj959EgvNbmdu1dfwZL8MldC+d/CeiixweK8X0wGc2vVwlzfbwNNtfYv53WyLP kWOg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5339MOf5pCmdVdBkw/HIFtIHjaI1FgHiVOD71pbP3GvNtGcYMNUc Uv/fhwOFEGJPMv2zJdZLeSA+/u0jF9j9CQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzrtHa7xwhehX4trgW88fN0Gxrdpqzih/xwo4nhDn1AgX/IrodtOXu9M5jFMT3HEiyhsG2Gcw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:2257:: with SMTP id a23mr15435823wmm.102.1600086907775; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 05:35:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from apalos.home (athedsl-4483967.home.otenet.gr. [94.71.55.135]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i11sm21199930wre.32.2020.09.14.05.35.05 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 14 Sep 2020 05:35:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 15:35:04 +0300 From: Ilias Apalodimas To: Will Deacon Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, ardb@kernel.org, naresh.kamboju@linaro.org, Jean-Philippe Brucker , Yauheni Kaliuta , Daniel Borkmann , Alexei Starovoitov , Zi Shen Lim , Catalin Marinas , Martin KaFai Lau , Song Liu , Yonghong Song , Andrii Nakryiko , John Fastabend , KP Singh , "David S. Miller" , Jakub Kicinski , Jesper Dangaard Brouer , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: bpf: Fix branch offset in JIT Message-ID: <20200914123504.GA124316@apalos.home> References: <20200914083622.116554-1-ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> <20200914122042.GA24441@willie-the-truck> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200914122042.GA24441@willie-the-truck> Sender: bpf-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 01:20:43PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 11:36:21AM +0300, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > > Running the eBPF test_verifier leads to random errors looking like this: > > > > [ 6525.735488] Unexpected kernel BRK exception at EL1 > > [ 6525.735502] Internal error: ptrace BRK handler: f2000100 [#1] SMP > > [ 6525.741609] Modules linked in: nls_utf8 cifs libdes libarc4 dns_resolver fscache binfmt_misc nls_ascii nls_cp437 vfat fat aes_ce_blk crypto_simd cryptd aes_ce_cipher ghash_ce gf128mul efi_pstore sha2_ce sha256_arm64 sha1_ce evdev efivars efivarfs ip_tables x_tables autofs4 btrfs blake2b_generic xor xor_neon zstd_compress raid6_pq libcrc32c crc32c_generic ahci xhci_pci libahci xhci_hcd igb libata i2c_algo_bit nvme realtek usbcore nvme_core scsi_mod t10_pi netsec mdio_devres of_mdio gpio_keys fixed_phy libphy gpio_mb86s7x > > [ 6525.787760] CPU: 3 PID: 7881 Comm: test_verifier Tainted: G W 5.9.0-rc1+ #47 > > [ 6525.796111] Hardware name: Socionext SynQuacer E-series DeveloperBox, BIOS build #1 Jun 6 2020 > > [ 6525.804812] pstate: 20000005 (nzCv daif -PAN -UAO BTYPE=--) > > [ 6525.810390] pc : bpf_prog_c3d01833289b6311_F+0xc8/0x9f4 > > [ 6525.815613] lr : bpf_prog_d53bb52e3f4483f9_F+0x38/0xc8c > > [ 6525.820832] sp : ffff8000130cbb80 > > [ 6525.824141] x29: ffff8000130cbbb0 x28: 0000000000000000 > > [ 6525.829451] x27: 000005ef6fcbf39b x26: 0000000000000000 > > [ 6525.834759] x25: ffff8000130cbb80 x24: ffff800011dc7038 > > [ 6525.840067] x23: ffff8000130cbd00 x22: ffff0008f624d080 > > [ 6525.845375] x21: 0000000000000001 x20: ffff800011dc7000 > > [ 6525.850682] x19: 0000000000000000 x18: 0000000000000000 > > [ 6525.855990] x17: 0000000000000000 x16: 0000000000000000 > > [ 6525.861298] x15: 0000000000000000 x14: 0000000000000000 > > [ 6525.866606] x13: 0000000000000000 x12: 0000000000000000 > > [ 6525.871913] x11: 0000000000000001 x10: ffff8000000a660c > > [ 6525.877220] x9 : ffff800010951810 x8 : ffff8000130cbc38 > > [ 6525.882528] x7 : 0000000000000000 x6 : 0000009864cfa881 > > [ 6525.887836] x5 : 00ffffffffffffff x4 : 002880ba1a0b3e9f > > [ 6525.893144] x3 : 0000000000000018 x2 : ffff8000000a4374 > > [ 6525.898452] x1 : 000000000000000a x0 : 0000000000000009 > > [ 6525.903760] Call trace: > > [ 6525.906202] bpf_prog_c3d01833289b6311_F+0xc8/0x9f4 > > [ 6525.911076] bpf_prog_d53bb52e3f4483f9_F+0x38/0xc8c > > [ 6525.915957] bpf_dispatcher_xdp_func+0x14/0x20 > > [ 6525.920398] bpf_test_run+0x70/0x1b0 > > [ 6525.923969] bpf_prog_test_run_xdp+0xec/0x190 > > [ 6525.928326] __do_sys_bpf+0xc88/0x1b28 > > [ 6525.932072] __arm64_sys_bpf+0x24/0x30 > > [ 6525.935820] el0_svc_common.constprop.0+0x70/0x168 > > [ 6525.940607] do_el0_svc+0x28/0x88 > > [ 6525.943920] el0_sync_handler+0x88/0x190 > > [ 6525.947838] el0_sync+0x140/0x180 > > [ 6525.951154] Code: d4202000 d4202000 d4202000 d4202000 (d4202000) > > [ 6525.957249] ---[ end trace cecc3f93b14927e2 ]--- > > > > The reason seems to be the offset[] creation and usage ctx->offset[] > > "seems to be"? Are you unsure? Reading the history and other ports of the JIT implementation, I couldn't tell if the decision on skipping the 1st entry was deliberate or not on Aarch64. Reading through the mailist list didn't help either [1]. Skipping the 1st entry seems indeed to cause the problem. I did run the patch though the BPF tests and showed no regressions + fixing the error. > > > while building the eBPF body. The code currently omits the first > > instruction, since build_insn() will increase our ctx->idx before saving > > it. When "taken loop with back jump to 1st insn" test runs it will > > eventually call bpf2a64_offset(-1, 2, ctx). Since negative indexing is > > permitted, the current outcome depends on the value stored in > > ctx->offset[-1], which has nothing to do with our array. > > If the value happens to be 0 the tests will work. If not this error > > triggers. > > > > So let's fix it by creating the ctx->offset[] correctly in the first > > place and account for the extra instruction while calculating the arm > > instruction offsets. > > No Fixes: tag? I'll re-spin and apply one > > > Signed-off-by: Ilias Apalodimas > > Signed-off-by: Jean-Philippe Brucker > > Signed-off-by: Yauheni Kaliuta > > Non-author signoffs here. What's going on? My bad here, I'll add a Co-developed-by on v2 for the rest of the people and move my Signed-off last [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CANoWswkaj1HysW3BxBMG9_nd48fm0MxM5egdtmHU6YsEc_GUtQ@mail.gmail.com/T/#u Thanks /Ilias > > Will