On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 06:24:47PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 1:13 PM Daniel Borkmann <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> + }
> > >> emit_jmp:
> > >> if (is_imm8(jmp_offset)) {
> > >> + if (jmp_padding)
> > >> + cnt += emit_nops(&prog,
> > >> INSN_SZ_DIFF - 2);
>
> Could you describe all possible numbers of bytes in padding?
> Is it 0, 2, 4 ?
> Would be good to add warn_on_once to make sure the number
> of nops is expected.
>
For the conditional jumps, it could be 0 or 4. As for nop jumps, it may be
0, 2, or 5. For the pure jumps, 0 or 3. Will add the warning in the next
version.
> > >> struct bpf_prog *bpf_int_jit_compile(struct bpf_prog *prog)
> > >> {
> > >> struct bpf_binary_header *header = NULL;
> > >> @@ -1981,6 +1997,7 @@ struct bpf_prog *bpf_int_jit_compile(struct
> > >> bpf_prog *prog)
> > >> struct jit_context ctx = {};
> > >> bool tmp_blinded = false;
> > >> bool extra_pass = false;
> > >> + bool padding = prog->padded;
> > >
> > > can this ever be true on assignment? I.e., can the program be jitted
> > > twice?
> >
> > Yes, progs can be passed into the JIT twice, see also jit_subprogs(). In
> > one of
> > the earlier patches it would still potentially change the image size a
> > second
> > time which would break subprogs aka bpf2bpf calls.
>
> Right. I think memorized padded flag shouldn't be in sticky bits
> of the prog structure.
> It's only needed between the last pass and extra pass for bpf2bpf calls.
> I think it would be cleaner to keep it in struct x64_jit_data *jit_data.
>
Okay, jit_data is surely a better place for the flag.
> As others have said the selftests are must have.
> Especially for bpf2bpf calls where one subprog is padded.
>
Will try to craft some test cases for this patch in v2.
Gary Lin
