On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 10:07:46AM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoi...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 07:20:36PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> >> From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <t...@redhat.com>
> >>
> >> This adds support for wrapping eBPF program dispatch in chain calling
> >> logic. The code injection is controlled by a flag at program load time; if
> >> the flag is set, the BPF program will carry a flag bit that changes the
> >> program dispatch logic to wrap it in a chain call loop.
> >>
> >> Ideally, it shouldn't be necessary to set the flag on program load time,
> >> but rather inject the calls when a chain call program is first loaded. The
> >> allocation logic sets the whole of struct bpf_prog to be read-only memory,
> >> so it can't immediately be modified, but conceivably we could just unlock
> >> the first page of the struct and flip the bit when a chain call program is
> >> first attached.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <t...@redhat.com>
> >> ---
> >> include/linux/bpf.h | 3 +++
> >> include/linux/filter.h | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >> include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 6 ++++++
> >> kernel/bpf/core.c | 6 ++++++
> >> kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 4 +++-
> >> 5 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
> >> index 5b9d22338606..13e5f38cf5c6 100644
> >> --- a/include/linux/bpf.h
> >> +++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
> >> @@ -365,6 +365,8 @@ struct bpf_prog_stats {
> >> struct u64_stats_sync syncp;
> >> };
> >>
> >> +#define BPF_NUM_CHAIN_SLOTS 8
> >> +
> >> struct bpf_prog_aux {
> >> atomic_t refcnt;
> >> u32 used_map_cnt;
> >> @@ -383,6 +385,7 @@ struct bpf_prog_aux {
> >> struct list_head ksym_lnode;
> >> const struct bpf_prog_ops *ops;
> >> struct bpf_map **used_maps;
> >> + struct bpf_prog *chain_progs[BPF_NUM_CHAIN_SLOTS];
> >> struct bpf_prog *prog;
> >> struct user_struct *user;
> >> u64 load_time; /* ns since boottime */
> >> diff --git a/include/linux/filter.h b/include/linux/filter.h
> >> index 2ce57645f3cd..3d1e4991e61d 100644
> >> --- a/include/linux/filter.h
> >> +++ b/include/linux/filter.h
> >> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
> >> #include <linux/kallsyms.h>
> >> #include <linux/if_vlan.h>
> >> #include <linux/vmalloc.h>
> >> +#include <linux/nospec.h>
> >>
> >> #include <net/sch_generic.h>
> >>
> >> @@ -528,6 +529,7 @@ struct bpf_prog {
> >> is_func:1, /* program is a bpf function */
> >> kprobe_override:1, /* Do we override a kprobe?
> >> */
> >> has_callchain_buf:1, /* callchain buffer
> >> allocated? */
> >> + chain_calls:1, /* should this use the
> >> chain_call wrapper */
> >> enforce_expected_attach_type:1; /* Enforce
> >> expected_attach_type checking at attach time */
> >> enum bpf_prog_type type; /* Type of BPF program */
> >> enum bpf_attach_type expected_attach_type; /* For some prog types */
> >> @@ -551,6 +553,30 @@ struct sk_filter {
> >> struct bpf_prog *prog;
> >> };
> >>
> >> +#define BPF_MAX_CHAIN_CALLS 32
> >> +static __always_inline unsigned int do_chain_calls(const struct bpf_prog
> >> *prog,
> >> + const void *ctx)
> >> +{
> >> + int i = BPF_MAX_CHAIN_CALLS;
> >> + int idx;
> >> + u32 ret;
> >> +
> >> + do {
> >> + ret = (*(prog)->bpf_func)(ctx, prog->insnsi);
> >
> > This breaks program stats.
>
> Oh, right, silly me. Will fix.
>
> >> +
> >> + if (ret + 1 >= BPF_NUM_CHAIN_SLOTS) {
> >> + prog = prog->aux->chain_progs[0];
> >> + continue;
> >> + }
> >> + idx = ret + 1;
> >> + idx = array_index_nospec(idx, BPF_NUM_CHAIN_SLOTS);
> >> +
> >> + prog = prog->aux->chain_progs[idx] ?: prog->aux->chain_progs[0];
> >> + } while (prog && --i);
> >> +
> >> + return ret;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> DECLARE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(bpf_stats_enabled_key);
> >>
> >> #define BPF_PROG_RUN(prog, ctx) ({ \
> >> @@ -559,14 +585,18 @@ DECLARE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(bpf_stats_enabled_key);
> >> if (static_branch_unlikely(&bpf_stats_enabled_key)) { \
> >> struct bpf_prog_stats *stats; \
> >> u64 start = sched_clock(); \
> >> - ret = (*(prog)->bpf_func)(ctx, (prog)->insnsi); \
> >> + ret = prog->chain_calls ? \
> >> + do_chain_calls(prog, ctx) : \
> >> + (*(prog)->bpf_func)(ctx, (prog)->insnsi); \
> >
> > I thought you agreed on 'no performance regressions' rule?
>
> As I wrote in the cover letter I could not measurable a performance
> impact from this, even with the simplest possible XDP program (where
> program setup time has the largest impact).
>
> This was the performance before/after patch (also in the cover letter):
>
> Before patch (XDP DROP program): 31.5 Mpps
> After patch (XDP DROP program): 32.0 Mpps
>
> So actually this *increases* performance ;)
> (Or rather, the difference is within the measurement uncertainty on my
> system).
I have hard time believing such numbers.
If I wasn't clear before: Nack to such hack in BPF_PROG_RUN.
Please implement proper indirect calls and jumps.
Apps have to cooperate with each other regardless
whereas above is a narrow solution to one problem.
