On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 3:55 PM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 2:21 AM Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Andrii Nakryiko writes:
> >
> > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 4:22 AM Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Andrii Nakryiko writes:
> > >>
> > >> > On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 2:31 PM Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> This is an RFC based on latest bpf-next about acclerating insn patching
> > >> >> speed, it is now near the shape of final PATCH set, and we could see the
> > >> >> changes migrating to list patching would brings, so send out for
> > >> >> comments. Most of the info are in cover letter. I splitted the code in a
> > >> >> way to show API migration more easily.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Hey Jiong,
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Sorry, took me a while to get to this and learn more about instruction
> > >> > patching. Overall this looks good and I think is a good direction.
> > >> > I'll post high-level feedback here, and some more
> > >> > implementation-specific ones in corresponding patches.
> > >>
> > >> Great, thanks very much for the feedbacks. Most of your feedbacks are
> > >> hitting those pain points I exactly had ran into. For some of them, I
> > >> thought similar solutions like yours, but failed due to various
> > >> reasons. Let's go through them again, I could have missed some important
> > >> things.
> > >>
> > >> Please see my replies below.
> > >
> > > Thanks for thoughtful reply :)
> > >
> > >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Test Results
> > >> >> ===
> > >> >> - Full pass on test_verifier/test_prog/test_prog_32 under all three
> > >> >> modes (interpreter, JIT, JIT with blinding).
> > >> >>
> > >> >> - Benchmarking shows 10 ~ 15x faster on medium sized prog, and reduce
> > >> >> patching time from 5100s (nearly one and a half hour) to less than
> > >> >> 0.5s for 1M insn patching.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Known Issues
> > >> >> ===
> > >> >> - The following warning is triggered when running scale test which
> > >> >> contains 1M insns and patching:
> > >> >> warning of mm/page_alloc.c:4639 __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x29e/0x330
> > >> >>
> > >> >> This is caused by existing code, it can be reproduced on bpf-next
> > >> >> master with jit blinding enabled, then run scale unit test, it will
> > >> >> shown up after half an hour. After this set, patching is very fast, so
> > >> >> it shows up quickly.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> - No line info adjustment support when doing insn delete, subprog adj
> > >> >> is with bug when doing insn delete as well. Generally, removal of insns
> > >> >> could possibly cause remove of entire line or subprog, therefore
> > >> >> entries of prog->aux->linfo or env->subprog needs to be deleted. I
> > >> >> don't have good idea and clean code for integrating this into the
> > >> >> linearization code at the moment, will do more experimenting,
> > >> >> appreciate ideas and suggestions on this.
> > >> >
> > >> > Is there any specific problem to detect which line info to delete? Or
> > >> > what am I missing besides careful implementation?
> > >>
> > >> Mostly line info and subprog info are range info which covers a range of
> > >> insns. Deleting insns could causing you adjusting the range or removing one
> > >> range entirely. subprog info could be fully recalcuated during
> > >> linearization while line info I need some careful implementation and I
> > >> failed to have clean code for this during linearization also as said no
> > >> unit tests to help me understand whether the code is correct or not.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Ok, that's good that it's just about clean implementation. Try to
> > > implement it as clearly as possible. Then post it here, and if it can
> > > be improved someone (me?) will try to help to clean it up further.
> > >
> > > Not a big expert on line info, so can't comment on that,
> > > unfortunately. Maybe Yonghong can chime in (cc'ed)
> > >
> > >
> > >> I will described this latter, spent too much time writing the following
> > >> reply. Might worth an separate discussion thread.
> > >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Insn delete doesn't happen on normal programs, for example Cilium
> > >> >> benchmarks, and happens rarely on test_progs, so the test coverage is
> > >> >> not good. That's also why this RFC have a full pass on selftest with
> > >> >> this known issue.
> > >> >
> > >> > I hope you'll add test for deletion (and w/ corresponding line info)
> > >> > in final patch set :)
> > >>
> > >> Will try. Need to spend some time on BTF format.
> > >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >> - Could further use mem pool to accelerate the speed, changes are trivial
> > >> >> on top of this RFC, and could be 2x extra faster. Not included in this
> > >> >> RFC as reducing the algo complexity from quadratic to linear of insn
> > >> >> number is the first step.
> > >> >
> > >> > Honestly, I think that would add more complexity than necessary, and I
> > >> > think we can further speed up performance without that, see below.
> > >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Background
> > >> >> ===
> > >> >> This RFC aims to accelerate BPF insn patching speed, patching means expand
> > >> >> one bpf insn at any offset inside bpf prog into a set of new insns, or
> > >> >> remove insns.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> At the moment, insn patching is quadratic of insn number, this is due to
> > >> >> branch targets of jump insns needs to be adjusted, and the algo used is:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> for insn inside prog
> > >> >> patch insn + regeneate bpf prog
> > >> >> for insn inside new prog
> > >> >> adjust jump target
> > >> >>
> > >> >> This is causing significant time spending when a bpf prog requires large
> > >> >> amount of patching on different insns. Benchmarking shows it could take
> > >> >> more than half minutes to finish patching when patching number is more
> > >> >> than 50K, and the time spent could be more than one hour when patching
> > >> >> number is around 1M.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> 15000 : 3s
> > >> >> 45000 : 29s
> > >> >> 95000 : 125s
> > >> >> 195000 : 712s
> > >> >> 1000000 : 5100s
> > >> >>
> > >> >> This RFC introduces new patching infrastructure. Before doing insn
> > >> >> patching, insns in bpf prog are turned into a singly linked list, insert
> > >> >> new insns just insert new list node, delete insns just set delete flag.
> > >> >> And finally, the list is linearized back into array, and branch target
> > >> >> adjustment is done for all jump insns during linearization. This algo
> > >> >> brings the time complexity from quadratic to linear of insn number.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Benchmarking shows the new patching infrastructure could be 10 ~ 15x faster
> > >> >> on medium sized prog, and for a 1M patching it reduce the time from 5100s
> > >> >> to less than 0.5s.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Patching API
> > >> >> ===
> > >> >> Insn patching could happen on two layers inside BPF. One is "core layer"
> > >> >> where only BPF insns are patched. The other is "verification layer" where
> > >> >> insns have corresponding aux info as well high level subprog info, so
> > >> >> insn patching means aux info needs to be patched as well, and subprog info
> > >> >> needs to be adjusted. BPF prog also has debug info associated, so line info
> > >> >> should always be updated after insn patching.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> So, list creation, destroy, insert, delete is the same for both layer,
> > >> >> but lineration is different. "verification layer" patching require extra
> > >> >> work. Therefore the patch APIs are:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> list creation: bpf_create_list_insn
> > >> >> list patch: bpf_patch_list_insn
> > >> >> list pre-patch: bpf_prepatch_list_insn
> > >> >
> > >> > I think pre-patch name is very confusing, until I read full
> > >> > description I couldn't understand what it's supposed to be used for.
> > >> > Speaking of bpf_patch_list_insn, patch is also generic enough to leave
> > >> > me wondering whether instruction buffer is inserted after instruction,
> > >> > or instruction is replaced with a bunch of instructions.
> > >> >
> > >> > So how about two more specific names:
> > >> > bpf_patch_list_insn -> bpf_list_insn_replace (meaning replace given
> > >> > instruction with a list of patch instructions)
> > >> > bpf_prepatch_list_insn -> bpf_list_insn_prepend (well, I think this
> > >> > one is pretty clear).
> > >>
> > >> My sense on English word is not great, will switch to above which indeed
> > >> reads more clear.
> > >>
> > >> >> list lineration (core layer): prog = bpf_linearize_list_insn(prog, list)
> > >> >> list lineration (veri layer): env = verifier_linearize_list_insn(env, list)
> > >> >
> > >> > These two functions are both quite involved, as well as share a lot of
> > >> > common code. I'd rather have one linearize instruction, that takes env
> > >> > as an optional parameter. If env is specified (which is the case for
> > >> > all cases except for constant blinding pass), then adjust aux_data and
> > >> > subprogs along the way.
> > >>
> > >> Two version of lineration and how to unify them was a painpoint to me. I
> > >> thought to factor out some of the common code out, but it actually doesn't
> > >> count much, the final size counting + insnsi resize parts are the same,
> > >> then things start to diverge since the "Copy over insn" loop.
> > >>
> > >> verifier layer needs to copy and initialize aux data etc. And jump
> > >> relocation is different. At core layer, the use case is JIT blinding which
> > >> could expand an jump_imm insn into a and/or/jump_reg sequence, and the
> > >
> > > Sorry, I didn't get what "could expand an jump_imm insn into a
> > > and/or/jump_reg sequence", maybe you can clarify if I'm missing
> > > something.
> > >
> > > But from your cover letter description, core layer has no jumps at
> > > all, while verifier has jumps inside patch buffer. So, if you support
> > > jumps inside of patch buffer, it will automatically work for core
> > > layer. Or what am I missing?
> >
> > I meant in core layer (JIT blinding), there is the following patching:
> >
> > input:
> > insn 0 insn 0
> > insn 1 insn 1
> > jmp_imm >> mov_imm \
> > insn 2 xor_imm insn seq expanded from jmp_imm
> > insn 3 jmp_reg /
> > insn 2
> > insn 3
> >
> >
> > jmp_imm is the insn that will be patched, and the actually transformation
> > is to expand it into mov_imm/xor_imm/jmp_reg sequence. "jmp_reg", sitting
> > at the end of the patch buffer, must jump to the same destination as the
> > original jmp_imm, so "jmp_reg" is an insn inside patch buffer but should
> > be relocated, and the jump destination is outside of patch buffer.
>
>
> Ok, great, thanks for explaining, yeah it's definitely something that
> we should be able to support. BUT. It got me thinking a bit more and I
> think I have simpler and more elegant solution now, again, supporting
> both core-layer and verifier-layer operations.
>
> struct bpf_patchable_insn {
> struct bpf_patchable_insn *next;
> struct bpf_insn insn;
> int orig_idx; /* original non-patched index */
> int new_idx; /* new index, will be filled only during linearization */
> };
>
> struct bpf_patcher {
> /* dummy head node of a chain of patchable instructions */
> struct bpf_patchable_insn insn_head;
> /* dynamic array of size(original instruction count)
> * this is a map from original instruction index to a first
> * patchable instruction that replaced that instruction (or
> * just original instruction as bpf_patchable_insn).
> */
> int *orig_idx_to_patchable_insn;
> int cnt;
> };
>
> Few points, but it should be pretty clear just from comments and definitions:
> 1. When you created bpf_patcher, you create patchabe_insn list, fill
> orig_idx_to_patchable_insn map to store proper pointers. This array is
> NEVER changed after that.
> 2. When replacing instruction, you re-use struct bpf_patchable_insn
> for first patched instruction, then append after that (not prepend to
> next instruction to not disrupt orig_idx -> patchable_insn mapping).
> 3. During linearizations, you first traverse the chain of instructions
> and trivially assing new_idxs.
> 4. No need for patchabe_insn->target anymore. All jumps use relative
> instruction offsets, right? So when you need to determine new
> instruction index during linearization, you just do (after you
> calculated new instruction indicies):
>
> func adjust_jmp(struct bpf_patcher* patcher, struct bpf_patchable_insn *insn) {
> int old_jmp_idx = insn->orig_idx + jmp_offset_of(insn->insn);
> int new_jmp_idx = patcher->orig_idx_to_patchable_insn[old_jmp_idx]->new_idx;
> adjust_jmp_offset(insn->insn, new_jmp_idx) - insn->orig_idx;
> }
Forgot to mention. To handle deleted insns, you can either traverse
till you find first non-deleted instruction after that one, or during
filling of new_idx, just make sure to that new_idx of deleted
instruction is the same as the first non-deleted instruction's
new_idx.
For subprogs (presuming there is no case where we can just eliminate
entire subprog), you can just do simple look up from original index to
a new index. No need to copy/recalculate, etc. It's just orig_idx ->
new_idx mapping.
>
> The idea is that we want to support quick look-up by original
> instruction index. That's what orig_idx_to_patchable_insn provides. On
> the other hand, no existing instruction is ever referencing newly
> patched instruction by its new offset, so with careful implementation,
> you can transparently support all the cases, regardless if it's in
> core layer or verifier layer (so, e.g., verifier layer patched
> instructions now will be able to jump out of patched buffer, if
> necessary, neat, right?).
>
> It is cleaner than everything we've discussed so far. Unless I missed
> something critical (it's all quite convoluted, so I might have
> forgotten some parts already). Let me know what you think.
>
>
> >
> > This means for core layer (jit blinding), it needs to take care of insn
> > inside patch buffer.
> >
> > > Just compared two version of linearize side by side. From what I can
> > > see, unified version could look like this, high-level:
> > >
> > > 1. Count final insn count (but see my other suggestions how to avoid
> > > that altogether). If not changed - exit.
> > > 2. Realloc insn buffer, copy just instructions (not aux_data yet).
> > > Build idx_map, if necessary.
> > > 3. (if env) then bpf_patchable_insn has aux_data, so now do another
> > > pass and copy it into resulting array.
> > > 4. (if env) Copy sub info. Though I'd see if we can just reuse old
> > > ones and just adjust offsets. I'm not sure why we need to allocate new
> > > array, subprogram count shouldn't change, right?
> >
> > If there is no dead insn elimination opt, then we could just adjust
> > offsets. When there is insn deleting, I feel the logic becomes more
> > complex. One subprog could be completely deleted or partially deleted, so
> > I feel just recalculate the whole subprog info as a side-product is
> > much simpler.
>
> What's the situation where entirety of subprog can be deleted?
>
>
> >
> > > 5. (common) Relocate jumps. Not clear why core layer doesn't care
> > > about PATCHED (or, alternatively, why verifier layer cares).
> >
> > See above, in this RFC, core layer care PATCHED during relocating jumps,
> > and verifier layer doesn't.
> >
> > > And again, with targets pointer it will look totally different (and
> > > simpler).
> >
> > Yes, will see how the code looks.
> >
> > > 6. (if env) adjust subprogs
> > > 7. (common) Adjust prog's line info.
> > >
> > > The devil is in the details, but I think this will still be better if
> > > contained in one function if a bunch of `if (env)` checks. Still
> > > pretty linear.
> > >
> > >> jump_reg is at the end of the patch buffer, it should be relocated. While
> > >> all use case in verifier layer, no jump in the prog will be patched and all
> > >> new jumps in patch buffer will jump inside the buffer locally so no need to
> > >> resolve.
> > >>
> > >> And yes we could unify them into one and control the diverge using
> > >> argument, but then where to place the function is an issue. My
> > >> understanding is verifier.c is designed to be on top of core.c and core.c
> > >> should not reference and no need to be aware of any verifier specific data
> > >> structures, for example env or bpf_aux_insn_data etc.
> > >
> > > Func prototype where it is. Maybe forward-declare verifier env struct.
> > > Implementation in verifier.c?
> > >
> > >>
> > >> So, in this RFC, I had choosed to write separate linerization function for
> > >> core and verifier layer. Does this make sense?
> > >
> > > See above. Let's still try to make it better.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > This would keep logic less duplicated and shouldn't complexity beyond
> > >> > few null checks in few places.
> > >> >
> > >> >> list destroy: bpf_destroy_list_insn
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> > I'd also add a macro foreach_list_insn instead of explicit for loops
> > >> > in multiple places. That would also allow to skip deleted instructions
> > >> > transparently.
> > >> >
> > >> >> list patch could change the insn at patch point, it will invalid the aux
> > >> >
> > >> > typo: invalid -> invalidate
> > >>
> > >> Ack.
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >> info at patching point. list pre-patch insert new insns before patch point
> > >> >> where the insn and associated aux info are not touched, it is used for
> > >> >> example in convert_ctx_access when generating prologue.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Typical API sequence for one patching pass:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> struct bpf_list_insn list = bpf_create_list_insn(struct bpf_prog);
> > >> >> for (elem = list; elem; elem = elem->next)
> > >> >> patch_buf = gen_patch_buf_logic;
> > >> >> elem = bpf_patch_list_insn(elem, patch_buf, cnt);
> > >> >> bpf_prog = bpf_linearize_list_insn(list)
> > >> >> bpf_destroy_list_insn(list)
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Several patching passes could also share the same list:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> struct bpf_list_insn list = bpf_create_list_insn(struct bpf_prog);
> > >> >> for (elem = list; elem; elem = elem->next)
> > >> >> patch_buf = gen_patch_buf_logic1;
> > >> >> elem = bpf_patch_list_insn(elem, patch_buf, cnt);
> > >> >> for (elem = list; elem; elem = elem->next)
> > >> >> patch_buf = gen_patch_buf_logic2;
> > >> >> elem = bpf_patch_list_insn(elem, patch_buf, cnt);
> > >> >> bpf_prog = bpf_linearize_list_insn(list)
> > >> >> bpf_destroy_list_insn(list)
> > >> >>
> > >> >> but note new inserted insns int early passes won't have aux info except
> > >> >> zext info. So, if one patch pass requires all aux info updated and
> > >> >> recalculated for all insns including those pathced, it should first
> > >> >> linearize the old list, then re-create the list. The RFC always create and
> > >> >> linearize the list for each migrated patching pass separately.
> > >> >
> > >> > I think we should do just one list creation, few passes of patching
> > >> > and then linearize once. That will save quite a lot of memory
> > >> > allocation and will speed up a lot of things. All the verifier
> > >> > patching happens one after the other without any other functionality
> > >> > in between, so there shouldn't be any problem.
> > >>
> > >> Yes, as mentioned above, it is possible and I had tried to do it in an very
> > >> initial impl. IIRC convert_ctx_access + fixup_bpf_calls could share the
> > >> same list, but then the 32-bit zero extension insertion pass requires
> > >> aux.zext_dst set properly for all instructions including those patched
> > >
> > > So zext_dst. Seems like it's easily calculatable, so doesn't seem like
> > > it even needs to be accessed from aux_data.
> > >
> > > But. I can see at least two ways to do this:
> > > 1. those patching passes that care about aux_data, should just do
> > > extra check for NULL. Because when we adjust insns now, we just leave
> > > zero-initialized aux_data, except for zext_dst and seen. So it's easy
> > > to default to them if aux_data is NULL for patchable_insn.
> > > 2. just allocate and fill them out them when applying patch insns
> > > buffer. It's not a duplication, we already fill them out during
> > > patching today. So just do the same, except through malloc()'ed
> > > pointer instead. At the end they will be copied into linear resulting
> > > array during linearization (uniformly with non-patched insns).
> > >
> > >> one which we need to linearize the list first (as we set zext_dst during
> > >> linerization), or the other choice is we do the zext_dst initialization
> > >> during bpf_patch_list_insn, but this then make bpf_patch_list_insn diverge
> > >> between core and verifier layer.
> > >
> > > List construction is much simpler, even if we have to have extra
> > > check, similar to `if (env) { do_extra(); }`, IMO, it's fine.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> > As for aux_data. We can solve that even more simply and reliably by
> > >> > storing a pointer along the struct bpf_list_insn
> > >>
> > >> This is exactly what I had implemented initially, but then the issue is how
> > >> to handle aux_data for patched insn? IIRC I was leave it as a NULL pointer,
> > >> but later found zext_dst info is required for all insns, so I end up
> > >> duplicating zext_dst in bpf_list_insn.
> > >
> > > See above. No duplication. You have a pointer. Whether aux_data is in
> > > original array or was malloc()'ed, doesn't matter. But no duplication
> > > of fields.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> This leads me worrying we need to keep duplicating fields there as soon as
> > >> there is new similar requirements in future patching pass and I thought it
> > >> might be better to just reference the aux_data inside env using orig_idx,
> > >> this avoids duplicating information, but we need to make sure used fields
> > >> inside aux_data for patched insn update-to-date during linearization or
> > >> patching list.
> > >>
> > >> > (btw, how about calling it bpf_patchable_insn?).
> > >>
> > >> No preference, will use this one.
> > >>
> > >> > Here's how I propose to represent this patchable instruction:
> > >> >
> > >> > struct bpf_list_insn {
> > >> > struct bpf_insn insn;
> > >> > struct bpf_list_insn *next;
> > >> > struct bpf_list_insn *target;
> > >> > struct bpf_insn_aux_data *aux_data;
> > >> > s32 orig_idx; // can repurpose this to have three meanings:
> > >> > // -2 - deleted
> > >> > // -1 - patched/inserted insn
> > >> > // >=0 - original idx
> > >>
> > >> I actually had experimented the -2/-1/0 trick, exactly the same number
> > >> assignment :) IIRC the code was not clear compared with using flag, the
> > >> reason seems to be:
> > >> 1. we still need orig_idx of an patched insn somehow, meaning negate the
> > >> index.
> > >
> > > Not following, original index with be >=0, no?
> > >
> > >> 2. somehow somecode need to know whether one insn is deleted or patched
> > >> after the negation, so I end up with some ugly code.
> > >
> > > So that's why you'll have constants with descriptive name for -2 and -1.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Anyway, I might had not thought hard enough on this, I will retry using the
> > >> special index instead of flag, hopefully I could have clean code this time.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Yeah, please try again. All those `orig_idx = insn->orig_idx - 1; if
> > > (orig_idx >= 0) { ... }` are very confusing.
> > >
> > >> > };
> > >> >
> > >> > The idea would be as follows:
> > >> > 1. when creating original list, target pointer will point directly to
> > >> > a patchable instruction wrapper for jumps/calls. This will allow to
> > >> > stop tracking and re-calculating jump offsets and instruction indicies
> > >> > until linearization.
> > >>
> > >> Not sure I have followed the idea of "target" pointer. At the moment we are
> > >> using index mapping array (generated as by-product during coping insn).
> > >>
> > >> While the "target" pointer means to during list initialization, each jump
> > >> insn will have target initialized to the list node of the converted jump
> > >> destination insn, and all those non-jump insns are with NULL? Then during
> > >> linearization you assign index to each list node (could be done as
> > >> by-product of other pass) before insn coping which could then relocate the
> > >> insn during the coping as the "target" would have final index calculated?
> > >> Am I following correctly?
> > >
> > > Yes, I think you are understanding correctly what I'm saying. For
> > > implementation, you can do it in few ways, through few passes or with
> > > some additional data, is less important. See what's cleanest.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> > 2. aux_data is also filled at that point. Later at linearization time
> > >> > you'd just iterate over all the instructions in final order and copy
> > >> > original aux_data, if it's present. And then just repace env's
> > >> > aux_data array at the end, should be very simple and fast.
> > >>
> > >> As explained, I am worried making aux_data a pointer will causing
> > >> duplicating some fields into list_insn if the fields are required for
> > >> patched insns.
> > >
> > > Addressed above, I don't think there will be any duplication, because
> > > we pass aux_data by pointer.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> > 3. during fix_bpf_calls, zext, ctx rewrite passes, we'll reuse the
> > >> > same list of instructions and those passes will just keep inserting
> > >> > instruction buffers. Given we have restriction that all the jumps are
> > >> > only within patch buffer, it will be trivial to construct proper
> > >> > patchable instruction wrappers for newly added instructions, with NULL
> > >> > for aux_data and possibly non-NULL target (if it's a JMP insn).
> > >> > 4. After those passes, linearize, adjust subprogs (for this you'll
> > >> > probably still need to create index mapping, right?), copy or create
> > >> > new aux_data.
> > >> > 5. Done.
> > >> >
> > >> > What do you think? I think this should be overall simpler and faster.
> > >> > But let me know if I'm missing something.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for all these thoughts, they are very good suggestions and reminds
> > >> me to revisit some points I had forgotten. I will do the following things:
> > >>
> > >> 1. retry the negative index solution to eliminate flag if the result code
> > >> could be clean.
> > >> 2. the "target" pointer seems make sense, it makes list_insn bigger but
> > >> normally space trade with time, so I will try to implement it to see
> > >> how the code looks like.
> > >> 3. I still have concerns on making aux_data as pointer. Mostly due to
> > >> patched insn will have NULL pointer and in case aux info of patched
> > >> insn is required, we need to duplicate info inside list_insn. For
> > >> example 32-bit zext opt requires zext_dst.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > So one more thing I wanted to suggest. I'll try to keep high-level
> > > suggestions here.
> > >
> > > What about having a wrapper for patchable_insn list, where you can
> > > store some additional data, like final count and whatever else. It
> > > will eliminate some passes (counting) and will make list handling
> > > easier (because you can have a dummy head pointer, so no special
> > > handling of first element
> >
> > Will try it.
> >
> > > you had this concern in patch #1, I
> > > believe). But it will be clear if it's beneficial once implemented.
> >
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Jiong
> > >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Compared with old patching code, this new infrastructure has much less core
> > >> >> code, even though the final code has a couple of extra lines but that is
> > >> >> mostly due to for list based infrastructure, we need to do more error
> > >> >> checks, so the list and associated aux data structure could be freed when
> > >> >> errors happens.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Patching Restrictions
> > >> >> ===
> > >> >> - For core layer, the linearization assume no new jumps inside patch buf.
> > >> >> Currently, the only user of this layer is jit blinding.
> > >> >> - For verifier layer, there could be new jumps inside patch buf, but
> > >> >> they should have branch target resolved themselves, meaning new jumps
> > >> >> doesn't jump to insns out of the patch buf. This is the case for all
> > >> >> existing verifier layer users.
> > >> >> - bpf_insn_aux_data for all patched insns including the one at patch
> > >> >> point are invalidated, only 32-bit zext info will be recalcuated.
> > >> >> If the aux data of insn at patch point needs to be retained, it is
> > >> >> purely insn insertion, so need to use the pre-patch API.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I plan to send out a PATCH set once I finished insn deletion line info adj
> > >> >> support, please have a looks at this RFC, and appreciate feedbacks.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Jiong Wang (8):
> > >> >> bpf: introducing list based insn patching infra to core layer
> > >> >> bpf: extend list based insn patching infra to verification layer
> > >> >> bpf: migrate jit blinding to list patching infra
> > >> >> bpf: migrate convert_ctx_accesses to list patching infra
> > >> >> bpf: migrate fixup_bpf_calls to list patching infra
> > >> >> bpf: migrate zero extension opt to list patching infra
> > >> >> bpf: migrate insn remove to list patching infra
> > >> >> bpf: delete all those code around old insn patching infrastructure
> > >> >>
> > >> >> include/linux/bpf_verifier.h | 1 -
> > >> >> include/linux/filter.h | 27 +-
> > >> >> kernel/bpf/core.c | 431 +++++++++++++++++-----------
> > >> >> kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 649 +++++++++++++++++++------------------------
> > >> >> 4 files changed, 580 insertions(+), 528 deletions(-)
> > >> >>
> > >> >> --
> > >> >> 2.7.4
> > >> >>
> > >>
> >
