Re: [PATCH v6 bpf-next 0/6] bpf: tailcalls in BPF subprograms
From: Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com>
Date: 2020-08-21 17:44:26
Also in:
bpf
Subsystem:
bpf jit for x86 64-bit, bpf [core], bpf [general] (safe dynamic programs and tools), the rest, x86 architecture (32-bit and 64-bit) · Maintainers:
Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko, Eduard Zingerman, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi, Linus Torvalds, Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, Dave Hansen
On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 04:00:10PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
On 8/2/20 5:07 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:quoted
On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 09:13:57AM +0200, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:quoted
On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 03:03:19AM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:quoted
On 7/31/20 2:03 AM, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:quoted
v5->v6: - propagate only those poke descriptors that individual subprogram is actually using (Daniel) - drop the cumbersome check if poke desc got filled in map_poke_run() - move poke->ip renaming in bpf_jit_add_poke_descriptor() from patch 4 to patch 3 to provide bisectability (Daniel)I did a basic test with Cilium on K8s with this set, spawning a few Pods and checking connectivity & whether we're not crashing since it has bit more elaborate tail call use. So far so good. I was inclined to push the series out, but there is one more issue I noticed and didn't notice earlier when reviewing, and that is overall stack size: What happens when you create a single program that has nested BPF to BPF calls e.g. either up to the maximum nesting or one call that is using up the max stack size which is then doing another BPF to BPF call that contains the tail call. In the tail call map, you have the same program in there. This means we create a worst case stack from BPF size of max_stack_size * max_tail_call_size, that is, 512*32. So that adds 16k worst case. For x86 we have a stack of arch/x86/include/asm/page_64_types.h: #define THREAD_SIZE_ORDER (2 + KASAN_STACK_ORDER) #define THREAD_SIZE (PAGE_SIZE << THREAD_SIZE_ORDER) So we end up with 16k in a typical case. And this will cause kernel stack overflow; I'm at least not seeing where we handle this situation in theNot quite. The subprog is always 32 byte stack (from safety pov). The real stack (when JITed) can be lower or zero. So the max stack is (512 - 32) * 32 = 15360. So there is no overflow, but may be a bit too close to comfort.I did a check with adding `stack_not_used(current)` to various points which provides some useful data under CONFIG_DEBUG_STACK_USAGE. From tc ingress side I'm getting roughly 13k free stack space which is definitely less than 15k even at tc layer. I also checked on sk_filter_trim_cap() on ingress and worst case I saw is very close to 12k, so a malicious or by accident a buggy program would be able to cause a stack overflow as-is.quoted
Imo the room is ok to land the set and the better enforcement can be done as a follow up later, like below idea...quoted
quoted
set. Hm, need to think more, but maybe this needs tracking of max stack across tail calls to force an upper limit..My knee jerk reaction would be to decrement the allowed max tail calls, but not sure if it's an option and if it would help.How about make the verifier use a lower bound for a function with a tail call ? Something like 64 would work. subprog_info[idx].stack_depth with tail_call will be >= 64. Then the main function will be automatically limited to 512-64 and the worst case stack = 14kbyte.Even 14k is way too close, see above. Some archs that are supported by the kernel run under 8k total stack size. In the long run if more archs would support tail calls with bpf-to-bpf calls, we might need a per-arch upper cap, but I think in this context here an upper total cap on x86 that is 4k should be reasonable, it sounds broken to me if more is indeed needed for the vast majority of use cases.quoted
When the sub prog with tail call is not an empty body (malicious stack abuser) then the lower bound won't affect anything. A bit annoying that stack_depth will be used by JIT to actually allocate that much. Some of it will not be used potentially, but I think it's fine. It's much simpler solution than to keep two variables to track stack size. Or may be check_max_stack_depth() can be a bit smarter and it can detect that subprog is using tail_call without actually hacking stack_depth variable.+1, I think that would be better, maybe we could have a different cost function for the tail call counter itself depending in which call-depth we are, but that also requires two vars for tracking (tail call counter, call depth counter), so more JIT changes & emitted insns required. :/ Otoh, what if tail call counter is limited to 4k and we subtract stack usage instead with a min cost (e.g. 128) if progs use less than that? Though the user experience will be really bad in this case given these semantics feel less deterministic / hard to debug from user PoV.
Let's get this rolling again. I like this approach, but from the opposite way - instead of decrementing from 4k, let's start with 0 like we did before and add up the max(stack_size, 128) on each tailcall as you suggested. Reason for that is no need for changes in prologue, we can keep the xor eax,eax insn which occupies 2 bytes whereas mov eax, 4096 needs 5 bytes from what I see. cmp eax, 4096 also needs more bytes than what cmp eax, MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT needed, but that's something we need as well as change mentioned below. One last change is add eax, 1 becomes the add eax, max(stack_size, 128) and it is also encoded differently. Let me know if you're fine with that and if i can post v7. Dirty patch below that I will squash onto patch 5 if it's fine. From 01d2494eed07284ea56134f40c6a304b109090ab Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com> Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 14:04:27 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] bpf: track stack size in tailcall WIP Signed-off-by: Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com> --- arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++----------------- include/linux/bpf.h | 1 + 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
index 880f283adb66..56b38536b1dd 100644
--- a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
+++ b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c@@ -393,7 +393,7 @@ static int get_pop_bytes(bool *callee_regs_used) * ... bpf_tail_call(void *ctx, struct bpf_array *array, u64 index) ... * if (index >= array->map.max_entries) * goto out; - * if (++tail_call_cnt > MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT) + * if (tail_call_stack_depth + stack_depth > MAX_TAIL_CALL_STACK_DEPTH) * goto out; * prog = array->ptrs[index]; * if (prog == NULL)
@@ -404,11 +404,12 @@ static int get_pop_bytes(bool *callee_regs_used) static void emit_bpf_tail_call_indirect(u8 **pprog, bool *callee_regs_used, u32 stack_depth) { - int tcc_off = -4 - round_up(stack_depth, 8); + u16 sd = max_t(u16, round_up(stack_depth, 8), 128); + int tcsd_off = -4 - round_up(stack_depth, 8); u8 *prog = *pprog; int pop_bytes = 0; - int off1 = 49; - int off2 = 38; + int off1 = 49 + 4; + int off2 = 38 + 2; int off3 = 16; int cnt = 0;
@@ -438,15 +439,16 @@ static void emit_bpf_tail_call_indirect(u8 **pprog, bool *callee_regs_used, EMIT2(X86_JBE, OFFSET1); /* jbe out */ /* - * if (tail_call_cnt > MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT) + * if (tail_call_stack_depth > MAX_TAIL_CALL_STACK_DEPTH) * goto out; */ - EMIT2_off32(0x8B, 0x85, tcc_off); /* mov eax, dword ptr [rbp - tcc_off] */ - EMIT3(0x83, 0xF8, MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT); /* cmp eax, MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT */ + EMIT2_off32(0x8B, 0x85, tcsd_off); /* mov eax, dword ptr [rbp - tcsd_off] */ + EMIT1_off32(0x3D, /* cmp eax, MAX_TAIL_CALL_STACK_DEPTH */ + MAX_TAIL_CALL_STACK_DEPTH); #define OFFSET2 (off2 + RETPOLINE_RCX_BPF_JIT_SIZE) EMIT2(X86_JA, OFFSET2); /* ja out */ - EMIT3(0x83, 0xC0, 0x01); /* add eax, 1 */ - EMIT2_off32(0x89, 0x85, tcc_off); /* mov dword ptr [rbp - tcc_off], eax */ + EMIT1_off32(0x05, sd); /* add eax, stack_depth */ + EMIT2_off32(0x89, 0x85, tcsd_off); /* mov dword ptr [rbp - tcsd_off], eax */ /* prog = array->ptrs[index]; */ EMIT4_off32(0x48, 0x8B, 0x8C, 0xD6, /* mov rcx, [rsi + rdx * 8 + offsetof(...)] */
@@ -488,10 +490,11 @@ static void emit_bpf_tail_call_direct(struct bpf_jit_poke_descriptor *poke, u8 **pprog, int addr, u8 *image, bool *callee_regs_used, u32 stack_depth) { - int tcc_off = -4 - round_up(stack_depth, 8); + u16 sd = max_t(u16, round_up(stack_depth, 8), 128); + int tcsd_off = -4 - round_up(stack_depth, 8); u8 *prog = *pprog; int pop_bytes = 0; - int off1 = 27; + int off1 = 27 + 2; int poke_off; int cnt = 0;
@@ -512,14 +515,14 @@ static void emit_bpf_tail_call_direct(struct bpf_jit_poke_descriptor *poke, poke_off = X86_PATCH_SIZE + pop_bytes + 7 + 1; /* - * if (tail_call_cnt > MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT) + * if (tail_call_stack_depth > MAX_TAIL_CALL_STACK_DEPTH) * goto out; */ - EMIT2_off32(0x8B, 0x85, tcc_off); /* mov eax, dword ptr [rbp - tcc_off] */ - EMIT3(0x83, 0xF8, MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT); /* cmp eax, MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT */ + EMIT2_off32(0x8B, 0x85, tcsd_off); /* mov eax, dword ptr [rbp - tcsd_off] */ + EMIT1_off32(0x3D, MAX_TAIL_CALL_STACK_DEPTH); /* cmp eax, MAX_TAIL_CALL_STACK_DEPTH */ EMIT2(X86_JA, off1); /* ja out */ - EMIT3(0x83, 0xC0, 0x01); /* add eax, 1 */ - EMIT2_off32(0x89, 0x85, tcc_off); /* mov dword ptr [rbp - tcc_off], eax */ + EMIT1_off32(0x05, sd); /* add eax, stack_size */ + EMIT2_off32(0x89, 0x85, tcsd_off); /* mov dword ptr [rbp - tcsd_off], eax */ poke->tailcall_bypass = image + (addr - poke_off - X86_PATCH_SIZE); poke->adj_off = X86_TAIL_CALL_OFFSET;
@@ -1430,7 +1433,7 @@ xadd: if (is_imm8(insn->off)) ctx->cleanup_addr = proglen; pop_callee_regs(&prog, callee_regs_used); if (!bpf_prog_was_classic(bpf_prog) && tail_call_seen) - EMIT1(0x59); /* pop rcx, get rid of tail_call_cnt */ + EMIT1(0x59); /* pop rcx, get rid of tail_call_stack_depth */ EMIT1(0xC9); /* leave */ EMIT1(0xC3); /* ret */ break;
diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
index c9c460a437ed..5600dfd2217a 100644
--- a/include/linux/bpf.h
+++ b/include/linux/bpf.h@@ -895,6 +895,7 @@ struct bpf_array { #define BPF_COMPLEXITY_LIMIT_INSNS 1000000 /* yes. 1M insns */ #define MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT 32 +#define MAX_TAIL_CALL_STACK_DEPTH 4096 #define BPF_F_ACCESS_MASK (BPF_F_RDONLY | \ BPF_F_RDONLY_PROG | \
--
2.20.1
>
> > Essentially I'm proposing to tweak this formula:
> > depth += round_up(max_t(u32, subprog[idx].stack_depth, 1), 32);
> > and replace 1 with 64 for subprogs with tail_call.
> >
>