Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 14 Sep 2020 22:24:07 +0300
From:   Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org>
To:     Xi Wang <xi.wang@gmail.com>
Cc:     Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
        ardb@kernel.org, naresh.kamboju@linaro.org,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>,
        Yauheni Kaliuta <yauheni.kaliuta@redhat.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Zi Shen Lim <zlim.lnx@gmail.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@chromium.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@kernel.org>,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@linaro.org>,
        =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn_T=F6pel?= <bjorn.topel@gmail.com>,
        Luke Nelson <luke.r.nels@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: bpf: Fix branch offset in JIT
Message-ID: <20200914192407.GB22481@apalos.home>
References: <20200914123504.GA124316@apalos.home>
 <20200914132350.GA126552@apalos.home>
 <20200914140114.GG24441@willie-the-truck>
 <20200914181234.0f1df8ba@carbon>
 <20200914170205.GA20549@apalos.home>
 <CAKU6vyaxnzWVA=MPAuDwtu4UOTWS6s0cZOYQKVhQg5Mue7Wbww@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200914175516.GA21832@apalos.home>
 <CAKU6vybuEGYtqh9gL9bwFaJ6xD=diN-0w_Mgc2Xyu4tHMdWgAA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200914182756.GA22294@apalos.home>
 <CAKU6vyYhG20qaA1iKwD=-pZHWjZYEZvX6Qmjs=aA-uJ-uwCw7w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKU6vyYhG20qaA1iKwD=-pZHWjZYEZvX6Qmjs=aA-uJ-uwCw7w@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 11:52:16AM -0700, Xi Wang wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 11:28 AM Ilias Apalodimas
> <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> wrote:
> > Even if that's true, is any reason at all why we should skip the first element
> > of the array, that's now needed since 7c2e988f400 to jump back to the first
> > instruction?
> > Introducing 2 extra if conditions and hotfix the array on the fly (and for
> > every future invocation of that), seems better to you?
> 
> My point was that there's no inherently correct/wrong way to construct
> offsets.  As Luke explained in his email, 1) there are two different
> strategies used by the JITs and 2) there are likely similar bugs
> beyond arm64.
> 
> Each strategy has pros and cons, and I'm fine with either.  I like the
> strategy used in your patch because it's more intuitive (offset[i] is
> the start of the emitted instructions for BPF instruction i, rather
> than the end), though the changes to the construction process are
> trickier.
> 

Well the arm64 was literally a 'save the idx before building the instruction',
and add another element on the array.  So it's not that trickier, especially
if we document it properly.

I haven't checked the rest of the architectures tbh (apart from x86). 
I assumed the tracking used in arm64 at that point, was a result of how 
eBPF worked before bounded loops were introduced. Maybe I was wrong.
It felt a bit more natural to track the beginning of the emitted 
instructions rather than the end.

> If we decide to patch the arm64 JIT the way you proposed, we should
> consider whether to change other JITs consistently.

I think this is a good idea. Following the code is not exactly a stroll in the
park, so we can at least make it consistent across architectures.

Thanks
/Ilias