Re: [PATCH 23/33] x86/asm/bpf: Create stack frames in bpf_jit.S
From: Josh Poimboeuf
Date: Thu Jan 21 2016 - 22:56:33 EST
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 06:44:28PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 04:49:27PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > bpf_jit.S has several callable non-leaf functions which don't honor
> > CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER, which can result in bad stack traces.
> > Create a stack frame before the call instructions when
> > CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER is enabled.
> > Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > ---
> > arch/x86/net/bpf_jit.S | 9 +++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit.S b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit.S
> > index eb4a3bd..f2a7faf 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit.S
> > +++ b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit.S
> > @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
> > * of the License.
> > */
> > #include <linux/linkage.h>
> > +#include <asm/frame.h>
> > /*
> > * Calling convention :
> > @@ -65,16 +66,18 @@ FUNC(sk_load_byte_positive_offset)
> > /* rsi contains offset and can be scratched */
> > #define bpf_slow_path_common(LEN) \
> > + lea -MAX_BPF_STACK + 32(%rbp), %rdx;\
> > + FRAME_BEGIN; \
> > mov %rbx, %rdi; /* arg1 == skb */ \
> > push %r9; \
> > push SKBDATA; \
> > /* rsi already has offset */ \
> > mov $LEN,%ecx; /* len */ \
> > - lea - MAX_BPF_STACK + 32(%rbp),%rdx; \
> > call skb_copy_bits; \
> > test %eax,%eax; \
> > pop SKBDATA; \
> > - pop %r9;
> > + pop %r9; \
> > + FRAME_END
> I'm not sure what above is doing.
> There is already 'push rbp; mov rbp,rsp' at the beginning of generated
> code and with above the stack trace will show two function at the same ip?
> since there were no calls between them?
> I think the stack walker will get even more confused?
> Also the JIT of bpf_call insn will emit variable number of push/pop
> around the call and I definitely don't want to add extra push rbp
> there, since it's the critical path and callee will do its own
> push rbp.
> Also there are push/pops emitted around div/mod
> and there is indirect goto emitted as well for bpf_tail_call
> that jumps into different function body without touching
> current stack.
Hm, I'm not sure I follow. Let me try to explain my understanding.
As you mentioned, the generated code sets up the frame pointer. From
EMIT1(0x55); /* push rbp */
EMIT3(0x48, 0x89, 0xE5); /* mov rbp,rsp */
And then later, do_jit() can generate a call into the functions in
bpf_jit.S. For example:
func = CHOOSE_LOAD_FUNC(imm32, sk_load_word);
EMIT1_off32(0xE8, jmp_offset); /* call */
So the functions in bpf_jit.S are being called by the generated code.
They're not part of the generated code itself. So they're callees and
need to create their own stack frame before they call out to somewhere
Or did I miss something?
> Also none of the JITed function are dwarf annotated.
But what does that have to do with frame pointers?
> I could be missing something. I think either this patch
> is not need or you need to teach the tool to ignore
> all JITed stuff. I don't think it's practical to annotate
> everything. Different JITs do their own magic.
> s390 JIT is even more fancy.
Well, but the point of these patches isn't to make the tool happy. It's
really to make sure that runtime stack traces can be made reliable.
Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see why JIT code can't honor
CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER just like any other code.