From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>,
Amery Hung <ameryhung@gmail.com>,
kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: [RFC PATCH bpf-next 1/6] bpf: Add gen_epilogue to bpf_verifier_ops
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 11:49:34 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240813184943.3759630-2-martin.lau@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240813184943.3759630-1-martin.lau@linux.dev>
From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>
This patch adds a .gen_epilogue to the bpf_verifier_ops. It is similar
to the existing .gen_prologue. Instead of allowing a subsystem
to run code at the beginning of a bpf prog, it allows the subsystem
to run code just before the bpf prog exit.
One of the use case is to allow the upcoming bpf qdisc to ensure that
the skb->dev is the same as the qdisc->dev_queue->dev. The bpf qdisc
struct_ops implementation could either fix it up or drop the skb.
Another use case could be in bpf_tcp_ca.c to enforce snd_cwnd
has sane value (e.g. non zero).
The epilogue can do the useful thing (like checking skb->dev) if it
can access the bpf prog's ctx. Unlike prologue, r1 may not hold the
ctx pointer. This patch saves the r1 in the stack if the .gen_epilogue
has returned some instructions in the "epilogue_buf".
The existing .gen_prologue is done in convert_ctx_accesses().
The new .gen_epilogue is done in the convert_ctx_accesses() also.
When it sees the (BPF_JMP | BPF_EXIT) instruction, it will be patched
with the earlier generated "epilogue_buf". The epilogue patching is
only done for the main prog.
Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>
---
The .gen_epilogue will need 8 extra bytes in the stack to save
the ctx pointer. It is now done after the check_max_stack_depth.
The ctx pointer saving will need to be done earlier before
check_max_stack_depth.
include/linux/bpf.h | 2 ++
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
2 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
index b9425e410bcb..2de67bc497f4 100644
--- a/include/linux/bpf.h
+++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
@@ -974,6 +974,8 @@ struct bpf_verifier_ops {
struct bpf_insn_access_aux *info);
int (*gen_prologue)(struct bpf_insn *insn, bool direct_write,
const struct bpf_prog *prog);
+ int (*gen_epilogue)(struct bpf_insn *insn, const struct bpf_prog *prog,
+ s16 ctx_stack_off);
int (*gen_ld_abs)(const struct bpf_insn *orig,
struct bpf_insn *insn_buf);
u32 (*convert_ctx_access)(enum bpf_access_type type,
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index df3be12096cf..bbb655f0c7b5 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -19610,15 +19610,37 @@ static int opt_subreg_zext_lo32_rnd_hi32(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
*/
static int convert_ctx_accesses(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
{
+ struct bpf_subprog_info *subprogs = env->subprog_info;
const struct bpf_verifier_ops *ops = env->ops;
- int i, cnt, size, ctx_field_size, delta = 0;
+ int i, cnt, size, ctx_field_size, delta = 0, epilogue_cnt = 0;
const int insn_cnt = env->prog->len;
- struct bpf_insn insn_buf[16], *insn;
+ struct bpf_insn insn_buf[16], epilogue_buf[16], *insn;
u32 target_size, size_default, off;
struct bpf_prog *new_prog;
enum bpf_access_type type;
bool is_narrower_load;
+ if (ops->gen_epilogue) {
+ epilogue_cnt = ops->gen_epilogue(epilogue_buf, env->prog,
+ -(subprogs[0].stack_depth + 8));
+ if (epilogue_cnt >= ARRAY_SIZE(epilogue_buf)) {
+ verbose(env, "bpf verifier is misconfigured\n");
+ return -EINVAL;
+ } else if (epilogue_cnt) {
+ /* Save the ARG_PTR_TO_CTX for the epilogue to use */
+ cnt = 0;
+ subprogs[0].stack_depth += 8;
+ insn_buf[cnt++] = BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_FP, BPF_REG_1,
+ -subprogs[0].stack_depth);
+ insn_buf[cnt++] = env->prog->insnsi[0];
+ new_prog = bpf_patch_insn_data(env, 0, insn_buf, cnt);
+ if (!new_prog)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+ env->prog = new_prog;
+ delta += cnt - 1;
+ }
+ }
+
if (ops->gen_prologue || env->seen_direct_write) {
if (!ops->gen_prologue) {
verbose(env, "bpf verifier is misconfigured\n");
@@ -19671,6 +19693,13 @@ static int convert_ctx_accesses(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
insn->code = BPF_STX | BPF_PROBE_ATOMIC | BPF_SIZE(insn->code);
env->prog->aux->num_exentries++;
continue;
+ } else if (insn->code == (BPF_JMP | BPF_EXIT) &&
+ epilogue_cnt &&
+ i + delta < subprogs[1].start) {
+ /* Generate epilogue for the main prog */
+ memcpy(insn_buf, epilogue_buf, sizeof(epilogue_buf));
+ cnt = epilogue_cnt;
+ goto patch_insn_buf;
} else {
continue;
}
@@ -19807,6 +19836,7 @@ static int convert_ctx_accesses(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
insn->dst_reg, insn->dst_reg,
size * 8, 0);
+patch_insn_buf:
new_prog = bpf_patch_insn_data(env, i + delta, insn_buf, cnt);
if (!new_prog)
return -ENOMEM;
--
2.43.5
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-08-13 18:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-08-13 18:49 [RFC PATCH bpf-next 0/6] bpf: Add gen_epilogue and allow kfunc call in pro/epilogue Martin KaFai Lau
2024-08-13 18:49 ` Martin KaFai Lau [this message]
2024-08-14 20:56 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 1/6] bpf: Add gen_epilogue to bpf_verifier_ops Eduard Zingerman
2024-08-15 22:14 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2024-08-17 22:25 ` Amery Hung
2024-08-13 18:49 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 2/6] bpf: Export bpf_base_func_proto Martin KaFai Lau
2024-08-13 18:49 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 3/6] selftests/test: test gen_prologue and gen_epilogue Martin KaFai Lau
2024-08-14 20:48 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-08-15 23:41 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2024-08-16 0:23 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-08-16 1:50 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-08-16 17:27 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2024-08-16 20:27 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-08-19 22:30 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2024-08-13 18:49 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 4/6] bpf: Add module parameter to " Martin KaFai Lau
2024-08-13 18:49 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 5/6] bpf: Allow pro/epilogue to call kfunc Martin KaFai Lau
2024-08-14 22:17 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-08-15 23:47 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2024-08-13 18:49 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 6/6] selftests/bpf: Add kfunc call test in gen_prologue and gen_epilogue Martin KaFai Lau
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=20240813184943.3759630-2-martin.lau@linux.dev \
--to=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=ameryhung@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox