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

Anton Protopopov
2025-09-22T09:22:38Z

On 25/09/19 01:47PM, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> On Fri, 2025-09-19 at 20:27 +0000, Anton Protopopov wrote:
> > On 25/09/19 12:44PM, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2025-09-19 at 21:28 +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > > > On 9/19/25 8:26 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 12:12 AM Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, 2025-09-19 at 07:05 +0000, Anton Protopopov wrote:
> > > > > > > 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?)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We have the following covered by CI:
> > > > > > - arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> > > > > > - arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> > > > > > - arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> > > > > >
> > > > > > People work on these jits actively:
> > > > > > - arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_core.c
> > > > > > - arch/loongarch/net/bpf_jit.c
> > > > > > - arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, we can probably ask to test the patch-set.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The remaining are:
> > > > > > - arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c
> > > > > > - arch/parisc/net/bpf_jit_core.c
> > > > > > - arch/mips/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> > > > > > - arch/arm/net/bpf_jit_32.c
> > > > > > - arch/sparc/net/bpf_jit_comp_64.c
> > > > > > - arch/arc/net/bpf_jit_core.c
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The change to each individual jit is not complicated, just removing
> > > > > > the transformation call. Idk, I'd just go for it.
> > > > > > Maybe Alexei has concerns?
> > > > >
> > > > > No concerns.
> > > > > I don't remember why JIT calls it instead of the verifier.
> > > > >
> > > > > Daniel,
> > > > > do you recall? Any concern?
> > > >
> > > > Hm, I think we did this in the JIT back then for couple of reasons iirc,
> > > > the constant blinding needs to work from native bpf(2) as well as from
> > > > cbpf->ebpf (seccomp-bpf, filters, etc), so the JIT was a natural location
> > > > to capture them all, and to fallback to interpreter with the non-blinded
> > > > BPF-insns when something went wrong during blinding or JIT process (e.g.
> > > > JIT hits some internal limits etc). Moving bpf_jit_blind_constants() out
> > > > from JIT to verifier.c:do_check() means constant blinding of cbpf->ebpf
> > > > are not covered anymore (and in this case its reachable from unpriv).
> > >
> > > Hi Daniel,
> > >
> > > Thank you for the context.
> > > So, the ideal location for bpf_jit_blind_constants() would be in
> > > core.c in some wrapper function for bpf_int_jit_compile():
> > >
> > > static struct bpf_prog *jit_compile(prog)
> > > {
> > > tmp = bpf_jit_blind_constants()
> > > if (!tmp)
> > > return prog;
> > > return bpf_int_jit_compile(tmp);
> > > }
> > >
> > > A bit of a hassle.
> > >
> > > Anton, wdyt about a second option: adding adjust_subprog_starts()
> > > to bpf_jit_blind_constants() and leaving all the rest as-is?
> > > It would have to happen either way of call to bpf_jit_blind_constants()
> > > itself is moved.
> >
> > So, to be clear, in this case adjust_insn_arrays() stays as in the
> > original patch, but the "subprog_start_adjustment" chunks are
> > replaced by calling the adjust_subprog_starts() (for better
> > readability and consistency, right?)
>
> Yes, by adding adjust_subprog_starts() call inside
> bpf_jit_blind_constants() it should be possible to read
> env->subprog_info[*].start in the jit_subprogs() loop directly,
> w/o tracking the subprog_start_adjustment delta.
> (At-least I think this should work).

Ok, will do this way, thanks.