user/sven/linux.git/kernel/bpf/disasm.c, branch v5.16.4

bpf: Relicense disassembler as GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause

2021-09-02T12:49:23Z

Some time ago we dual-licensed both libbpf and bpftool through commits 1bc38b8ff6cc ("libbpf: relicense libbpf as LGPL-2.1 OR BSD-2-Clause") and 907b22365115 ("tools: bpftool: dual license all files"). The latter missed the disasm.{c,h} which we pull in via kernel/bpf/ such that we have a single source for verifier as well as bpftool asm dumping, see also f4ac7e0b5cc8 ("bpf: move instruction printing into a separate file"). It is currently GPL-2.0-only and missed the conversion in 907b22365115, therefore relicense the two as GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause as well. Spotted-by: Quentin Monnet Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Acked-by: Thomas Graf Acked-by: Brendan Jackman Acked-by: Jakub Kicinski Acked-by: Jiri Olsa Acked-by: Simon Horman Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau Acked-by: Xu Kuohai Acked-by: Edward Cree

bpf: Introduce BPF nospec instruction for mitigating Spectre v4

2021-07-28T22:20:56Z

In case of JITs, each of the JIT backends compiles the BPF nospec instruction /either/ to a machine instruction which emits a speculation barrier /or/ to /no/ machine instruction in case the underlying architecture is not affected by Speculative Store Bypass or has different mitigations in place already. This covers both x86 and (implicitly) arm64: In case of x86, we use 'lfence' instruction for mitigation. In case of arm64, we rely on the firmware mitigation as controlled via the ssbd kernel parameter. Whenever the mitigation is enabled, it works for all of the kernel code with no need to provide any additional instructions here (hence only comment in arm64 JIT). Other archs can follow as needed. The BPF nospec instruction is specifically targeting Spectre v4 since i) we don't use a serialization barrier for the Spectre v1 case, and ii) mitigation instructions for v1 and v4 might be different on some archs. The BPF nospec is required for a future commit, where the BPF verifier does annotate intermediate BPF programs with speculation barriers. Co-developed-by: Piotr Krysiuk Co-developed-by: Benedict Schlueter Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Piotr Krysiuk Signed-off-by: Benedict Schlueter Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov

Merge git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net

2021-04-10T03:48:35Z

Conflicts: MAINTAINERS - keep Chandrasekar drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_main.c - simple fix + trust the code re-added to param.c in -next is fine include/linux/bpf.h - trivial include/linux/ethtool.h - trivial, fix kdoc while at it include/linux/skmsg.h - move to relevant place in tcp.c, comment re-wrapped net/core/skmsg.c - add the sk = sk // sk = NULL around calls net/tipc/crypto.c - trivial Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski

bpf: Support bpf program calling kernel function

2021-03-27T03:41:51Z

This patch adds support to BPF verifier to allow bpf program calling kernel function directly. The use case included in this set is to allow bpf-tcp-cc to directly call some tcp-cc helper functions (e.g. "tcp_cong_avoid_ai()"). Those functions have already been used by some kernel tcp-cc implementations. This set will also allow the bpf-tcp-cc program to directly call the kernel tcp-cc implementation, For example, a bpf_dctcp may only want to implement its own dctcp_cwnd_event() and reuse other dctcp_*() directly from the kernel tcp_dctcp.c instead of reimplementing (or copy-and-pasting) them. The tcp-cc kernel functions mentioned above will be white listed for the struct_ops bpf-tcp-cc programs to use in a later patch. The white listed functions are not bounded to a fixed ABI contract. Those functions have already been used by the existing kernel tcp-cc. If any of them has changed, both in-tree and out-of-tree kernel tcp-cc implementations have to be changed. The same goes for the struct_ops bpf-tcp-cc programs which have to be adjusted accordingly. This patch is to make the required changes in the bpf verifier. First change is in btf.c, it adds a case in "btf_check_func_arg_match()". When the passed in "btf->kernel_btf == true", it means matching the verifier regs' states with a kernel function. This will handle the PTR_TO_BTF_ID reg. It also maps PTR_TO_SOCK_COMMON, PTR_TO_SOCKET, and PTR_TO_TCP_SOCK to its kernel's btf_id. In the later libbpf patch, the insn calling a kernel function will look like: insn->code == (BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL) insn->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL /* <- new in this patch */ insn->imm == func_btf_id /* btf_id of the running kernel */ [ For the future calling function-in-kernel-module support, an array of module btf_fds can be passed at the load time and insn->off can be used to index into this array. ] At the early stage of verifier, the verifier will collect all kernel function calls into "struct bpf_kfunc_desc". Those descriptors are stored in "prog->aux->kfunc_tab" and will be available to the JIT. Since this "add" operation is similar to the current "add_subprog()" and looking for the same insn->code, they are done together in the new "add_subprog_and_kfunc()". In the "do_check()" stage, the new "check_kfunc_call()" is added to verify the kernel function call instruction: 1. Ensure the kernel function can be used by a particular BPF_PROG_TYPE. A new bpf_verifier_ops "check_kfunc_call" is added to do that. The bpf-tcp-cc struct_ops program will implement this function in a later patch. 2. Call "btf_check_kfunc_args_match()" to ensure the regs can be used as the args of a kernel function. 3. Mark the regs' type, subreg_def, and zext_dst. At the later do_misc_fixups() stage, the new fixup_kfunc_call() will replace the insn->imm with the function address (relative to __bpf_call_base). If needed, the jit can find the btf_func_model by calling the new bpf_jit_find_kfunc_model(prog, insn). With the imm set to the function address, "bpftool prog dump xlated" will be able to display the kernel function calls the same way as it displays other bpf helper calls. gpl_compatible program is required to call kernel function. This feature currently requires JIT. The verifier selftests are adjusted because of the changes in the verbose log in add_subprog_and_kfunc(). Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210325015142.1544736-1-kafai@fb.com

bpf: Fix a spelling typo in bpf_atomic_alu_string disasm

2021-03-26T16:56:48Z

The name string for BPF_XOR is "xor", not "or". Fix it. Fixes: 981f94c3e921 ("bpf: Add bitwise atomic instructions") Signed-off-by: Xu Kuohai Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Brendan Jackman Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210325134141.8533-1-xukuohai@huawei.com

bpf: Change 'BPF_ADD' to 'BPF_AND' in print_bpf_insn()

2021-01-27T21:23:46Z

This 'BPF_ADD' is duplicated, and I belive it should be 'BPF_AND'. Fixes: 981f94c3e921 ("bpf: Add bitwise atomic instructions") Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Brendan Jackman Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210127022507.23674-1-dong.menglong@zte.com.cn

bpf: Add bitwise atomic instructions

2021-01-15T02:34:29Z

This adds instructions for atomic[64]_[fetch_]and atomic[64]_[fetch_]or atomic[64]_[fetch_]xor All these operations are isomorphic enough to implement with the same verifier, interpreter, and x86 JIT code, hence being a single commit. The main interesting thing here is that x86 doesn't directly support the fetch_ version these operations, so we need to generate a CMPXCHG loop in the JIT. This requires the use of two temporary registers, IIUC it's safe to use BPF_REG_AX and x86's AUX_REG for this purpose. Signed-off-by: Brendan Jackman Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Acked-by: Yonghong Song Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210114181751.768687-10-jackmanb@google.com

bpf: Add instructions for atomic_[cmp]xchg

2021-01-15T02:34:29Z

This adds two atomic opcodes, both of which include the BPF_FETCH flag. XCHG without the BPF_FETCH flag would naturally encode atomic_set. This is not supported because it would be of limited value to userspace (it doesn't imply any barriers). CMPXCHG without BPF_FETCH woulud be an atomic compare-and-write. We don't have such an operation in the kernel so it isn't provided to BPF either. There are two significant design decisions made for the CMPXCHG instruction: - To solve the issue that this operation fundamentally has 3 operands, but we only have two register fields. Therefore the operand we compare against (the kernel's API calls it 'old') is hard-coded to be R0. x86 has similar design (and A64 doesn't have this problem). A potential alternative might be to encode the other operand's register number in the immediate field. - The kernel's atomic_cmpxchg returns the old value, while the C11 userspace APIs return a boolean indicating the comparison result. Which should BPF do? A64 returns the old value. x86 returns the old value in the hard-coded register (and also sets a flag). That means return-old-value is easier to JIT, so that's what we use. Signed-off-by: Brendan Jackman Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Acked-by: Yonghong Song Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210114181751.768687-8-jackmanb@google.com

bpf: Add BPF_FETCH field / create atomic_fetch_add instruction

2021-01-15T02:34:29Z

The BPF_FETCH field can be set in bpf_insn.imm, for BPF_ATOMIC instructions, in order to have the previous value of the atomically-modified memory location loaded into the src register after an atomic op is carried out. Suggested-by: Yonghong Song Signed-off-by: Brendan Jackman Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Acked-by: John Fastabend Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210114181751.768687-7-jackmanb@google.com

bpf: Rename BPF_XADD and prepare to encode other atomics in .imm

2021-01-15T02:34:29Z

A subsequent patch will add additional atomic operations. These new operations will use the same opcode field as the existing XADD, with the immediate discriminating different operations. In preparation, rename the instruction mode BPF_ATOMIC and start calling the zero immediate BPF_ADD. This is possible (doesn't break existing valid BPF progs) because the immediate field is currently reserved MBZ and BPF_ADD is zero. All uses are removed from the tree but the BPF_XADD definition is kept around to avoid breaking builds for people including kernel headers. Signed-off-by: Brendan Jackman Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Acked-by: Björn Töpel Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210114181751.768687-5-jackmanb@google.com