Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] bpf: allow bpf programs to tail-call other bpf programs

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On 5/21/15 9:43 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 5/21/15 9:20 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > What I mean is: why do we need the interface to be "look up this index
> > > in an array and just to what it references" as a single atomic
> > > instruction?  Can't we break it down into first "look up this index in
> > > an array" and then "do this tail call"?
> >
> >
> > I've actually considered to do this split and do first part as map lookup
> > and 2nd as 'tail call to this ptr' insn, but it turned out to be
> > painful: verifier gets more complicated, ctx pointer needs to kept
> > somewhere, JITs need to special case two things instead of one.
> > Also I couldn't see a use case for exposing program pointer to the
> > program itself. I've explored this path only because it felt more
> > traditional 'goto *ptr' like, but adding new PTR_TO_PROG type to
> > verifier looked wasteful.
>
> At some point, I think that it would be worth extending the verifier
> to support more general non-integral scalar types. "Pointer to
> tail-call target" would be just one of them.  "Pointer to skb" might
> be nice as a real first-class scalar type that lives in a register as
> opposed to just being magic typed context.

well, I don't see a use case for 'pointer to tail-call target',
but more generic 'pointer to skb' indeed is a useful concept.
I was thinking more like 'pointer to structure of the type X',
then we can natively support 'pointer to task_struct',
'pointer to inode', etc which will help tracing programs to be
written in more convenient way.
Right now pointer walking has to be done via bpf_probe_read()
helper as demonstrated in tracex1_kern.c example.
With this future 'pointer to struct of type X' knowledge in verifier
we'll be able to do 'ptr->field' natively with higher performance.

> We'd still need some way to stick fds into a map, but that's not
> really the verifier's problem.

well, they both need to be aware of that. When it comes to safety
generalization suffers. Have to do extra checks both in map_update_elem
and in verifier. No way around that.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/