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=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 29421C433E2 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:25:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD1DE206B8 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:25:35 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="AWHXc65n" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726477AbgINNYc (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Sep 2020 09:24:32 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:55924 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726732AbgINNX4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Sep 2020 09:23:56 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-x343.google.com (mail-wm1-x343.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::343]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1445C061788 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 06:23:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm1-x343.google.com with SMTP id a9so25004wmm.2 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 06:23:55 -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=9KKAHd5EbHuuNc2bMZWefZ2QJ1kYaQRNhIokoyRDv7I=; b=AWHXc65nC76ZJ07Uekj/yaBkYFLpJmsZJwnwv60ov4DbxiEghNfiULexY+KkQ96BMt LYIwerzTExsN1HWP8OcWhdpddU4jIFCyDu/ey/Q8fK3El/O7MjDkU5hpdWIHvYSEBJYm wQVng0N7hnH8An20DqOLSYR9L18l094ndlyL655nA68OBX0YiAhyJue8p77Xudp739qk tub9HffaRQR/LpkRp56YvPKtDI4jQ3VhbVYTR2QXOngbdqMWv3DJK0RkH0+hDOEKZJ13 7+UhBuav5mqtSEd4dckaPi5iVyRyjCFKErYoKW8L4RycAhIzckzG3jzq1KN8cqlo7aAa ++9A== 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=9KKAHd5EbHuuNc2bMZWefZ2QJ1kYaQRNhIokoyRDv7I=; b=heKnpWsiUC87oaEVUxGqzuZGfCgzxAOuUc28WtmiuOiiJq75BoFWCIZNa5A5Ueo8Rg pZ1cPCDC7AQCzpdvvsfihr3YHiT7dPgQybZsI/f5vMMBfFrxvijnqGPTUc+WV5JXsdr1 KJIhFwo/hyk/672uiShMGMIeS7WMPaTQbJ4VAxrFduzU3X7Jlxr5OePVJiEiVVTB76OC GuI4M7yAvCMAlRQG4vx580NFhy1b6He0U0YktRm6Pt+ngnEN/CgGWZ5EpF5fIlkZx8Cw 987vA6sM8oTiaVSegOY3ogzlSl+/1N7C9jhnzFKsDzBozop7wHwyug9LY0R1FlBYphqc 8egg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532pASljXbsw/yeB9G++dYegXQZLZdsKESx2TI+E96KHqJOEPL1i uV8wxRbnsocKhO36hTXhWiUezw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzBeS/FWVDFZNGQu2g6+tjT96HdaLGMykxt2m78OmL3rcFW6brflSpcC2qSq1TCf30r8oS22A== X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c3d0:: with SMTP id t16mr15150689wmj.169.1600089833911; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 06:23:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from apalos.home (athedsl-4483967.home.otenet.gr. [94.71.55.135]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o9sm20388713wrw.58.2020.09.14.06.23.51 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 14 Sep 2020 06:23:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:23:50 +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: <20200914132350.GA126552@apalos.home> References: <20200914083622.116554-1-ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> <20200914122042.GA24441@willie-the-truck> <20200914123504.GA124316@apalos.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200914123504.GA124316@apalos.home> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org Hi Will, 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: > > > > > > [ 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. 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. Thanks /Ilias