Re: [PATCH] arm64: bpf: Fix branch offset in JIT

From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org>
Cc: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>,
	Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@kernel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	Yauheni Kaliuta <yauheni.kaliuta@redhat.com>,
	Zi Shen Lim <zlim.lnx@gmail.com>,
	naresh.kamboju@linaro.org,
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
	Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	KP Singh <kpsingh@chromium.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
	bpf@vger.kernel.org, Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>,
	ardb@kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: bpf: Fix branch offset in JIT
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 15:01:15 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200914140114.GG24441@willie-the-truck> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200914132350.GA126552@apalos.home>

Hi Ilias,

On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 04:23:50PM +0300, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 03:35:04PM +0300, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> > 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:

[...]

> > > > 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.
> 
> I'll correct myself here.
> Looking into 7c2e988f400e ("bpf: fix x64 JIT code generation for jmp to 1st insn")
> explains things a bit better.
> Jumping back to the 1st insn wasn't allowed until eBPF bounded loops were 
> introduced. That's what the 1st instruction was not saved in the original code.
> 
> > > 
> > > No Fixes: tag?
> > 
> > I'll re-spin and apply one 
> > 
> Any suggestion on any Fixes I should apply? The original code was 'correct' and
> broke only when bounded loops and their self-tests were introduced.

Ouch, that's pretty bad as it means nobody is regression testing BPF on
arm64 with mainline. Damn.

The Fixes: tag should identify the commit beyond which we don't need to
backport the fix, so it sounds like introduction of bounded loops, according
to your analysis.

Will

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel