netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@netronome.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Cc: Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@netronome.com>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	bpf@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	oss-drivers@netronome.com, davem@davemloft.net,
	paul.burton@mips.com, udknight@gmail.com, zlim.lnx@gmail.com,
	illusionist.neo@gmail.com, naveen.n.rao@linux.ibm.com,
	sandipan@linux.ibm.com, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com,
	heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, jakub.kicinski@netronome.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 bpf-next 01/16] bpf: verifier: mark verified-insn with sub-register zext flag
Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 21:20:15 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87h89kkjnk.fsf@netronome.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190523161601.mqvkzwjegon2cqku@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>


Alexei Starovoitov writes:

<snip>

> well, it made me realize that we're probably doing it wrong,
> since after calling check_reg_arg() we need to re-parse insn encoding.
> How about we change check_reg_arg()'s enum reg_arg_type instead?

This is exactly what I had implemented in my initial internal version.

> The caller has much more context and no need to parse insn opcode again.

And I had exactly the same thoughts, is_reg64 is duplicating what has been
done.

The code evolved into the current shape mostly because I agreed if we
re-centre all checks inside check_reg_arg, then we don't need to touch
quite a few call sites of check_reg_arg, the change/patch looks simpler,
and I was thinking is_reg64 is a quick check, so the overhead is not big.

> Something like:
> enum reg_arg_type {
>         SRC_OP64,        
>         DST_OP64,       
>         DST_OP_NO_MARK, // probably no need to split this one ?
>         SRC_OP32,      
>         DST_OP32,      
> };
>

Yeah, no need to split DST_OP_NO_MARK, my split was

enum reg_arg_type {
   SRC_OP,
+  SRC32_OP,
   DST_OP,
+  DST32_OP,
   DST_OP_NO_MARK 
}

No renaming on existing SRC/DST_OP, they mean 64-bit, the changes are
smaller, looks better?

But, we also need to know whether one patch-insn define sub-register, if it
is, we then conservatively mark it as needing zero extension. patch-insn
doesn't go through check_reg_arg analysis, so still need separate insn
parsing.

And because we also introduced hi32 rand which should only happen if
insn_aux.zext_dst is false. But when zext_dst is false, there are two
situations, one is this insn define a sub-register whose hi32 is not used
later, the other is this insn define a full 64-bit register. hi32 rand
should only happen on the prior situation. So is_reg64 also called to rule
out the latter. The use of is_64 could be removed by changing aux.zext_dst
from bool to enum, so we rename it to aux.reg_def, its value could be:

  REG_DEF_NONE (some insn doesn't define value, this is default)
  REG_DEF64
  REG_DEF32
  REG_DEF32_ZEXT

When calling check_reg_arg, and DST/DST_32 will initialize aux.reg_def into
REG_DEF64 and REG_DEF32 accordingly. Then, a later 64-bit use on sub-register
could promote REG_DEF32 into REG_DEF32_ZEXT.

In all, my propose changes are:
  1. split enum reg_arg_type, adding new SRC32_OP and DST32_OP, during insn
     walking, let call sites of check_reg_arg passing correct type
     directly, remove insn re-parsing inside check_reg_arg.
  2. keep "is_reg64", it will be used by parsing patched-insn.
  3. change aux.zext_dst to aux.reg_def, and change the type from bool to
     the enum listed above. When promoting one reg to REG_DEF32_ZEXT, also
     do sanity check, the promotion should only happen on REG_DEF32.

Does this looks good?

Regards,
Jiong

  reply	other threads:[~2019-05-23 20:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-05-22 18:54 [PATCH v7 bpf-next 00/16] bpf: eliminate zero extensions for sub-register writes Jiong Wang
2019-05-22 18:54 ` [PATCH v7 bpf-next 01/16] bpf: verifier: mark verified-insn with sub-register zext flag Jiong Wang
2019-05-23  2:07   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-05-23 14:28     ` Jiong Wang
2019-05-23 16:16       ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-05-23 20:20         ` Jiong Wang [this message]
2019-05-23 20:42           ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-05-22 18:54 ` [PATCH v7 bpf-next 02/16] bpf: verifier: mark patched-insn " Jiong Wang
2019-05-22 18:54 ` [PATCH v7 bpf-next 03/16] bpf: introduce new mov32 variant for doing explicit zero extension Jiong Wang
2019-05-22 18:55 ` [PATCH v7 bpf-next 04/16] bpf: verifier: insert zero extension according to analysis result Jiong Wang
2019-05-22 18:55 ` [PATCH v7 bpf-next 05/16] bpf: introduce new bpf prog load flags "BPF_F_TEST_RND_HI32" Jiong Wang
2019-05-22 18:55 ` [PATCH v7 bpf-next 06/16] bpf: verifier: randomize high 32-bit when BPF_F_TEST_RND_HI32 is set Jiong Wang
2019-05-22 18:55 ` [PATCH v7 bpf-next 07/16] libbpf: add "prog_flags" to bpf_program/bpf_prog_load_attr/bpf_load_program_attr Jiong Wang
2019-05-22 18:55 ` [PATCH v7 bpf-next 08/16] selftests: bpf: adjust several test_verifier helpers for insn insertion Jiong Wang
2019-05-22 18:55 ` [PATCH v7 bpf-next 09/16] selftests: bpf: enable hi32 randomization for all tests Jiong Wang
2019-05-22 18:55 ` [PATCH v7 bpf-next 10/16] arm: bpf: eliminate zero extension code-gen Jiong Wang
2019-05-22 18:55 ` [PATCH v7 bpf-next 11/16] powerpc: " Jiong Wang
2019-05-22 18:55 ` [PATCH v7 bpf-next 12/16] s390: " Jiong Wang
2019-05-22 18:55 ` [PATCH v7 bpf-next 13/16] sparc: " Jiong Wang
2019-05-22 18:55 ` [PATCH v7 bpf-next 14/16] x32: " Jiong Wang
2019-05-22 18:55 ` [PATCH v7 bpf-next 15/16] riscv: " Jiong Wang
2019-05-22 18:55 ` [PATCH v7 bpf-next 16/16] nfp: " Jiong Wang

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=87h89kkjnk.fsf@netronome.com \
    --to=jiong.wang@netronome.com \
    --cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=illusionist.neo@gmail.com \
    --cc=jakub.kicinski@netronome.com \
    --cc=naveen.n.rao@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=oss-drivers@netronome.com \
    --cc=paul.burton@mips.com \
    --cc=sandipan@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=udknight@gmail.com \
    --cc=zlim.lnx@gmail.com \
    /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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).