On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 1:42 PM Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 11:07 AM Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > With patch set [1], precision backtracing supports register spill/fill > > to/from the stack. The patch [2] allows initial imprecise register spill > > with content 0. This is a common case for cpuv3 and lower for > > initializing the stack variables with pattern > > r1 = 0 > > *(u64 *)(r10 - 8) = r1 > > and the [2] has demonstrated good verification improvement. > > > > For cpuv4, the initialization could be > > *(u64 *)(r10 - 8) = 0 > > The current verifier marks the r10-8 contents with STACK_ZERO. > > Similar to [2], let us permit the above insn to behave like > > imprecise register spill which can reduce number of verified states. > > > > I checked cpuv3 and cpuv4 with and without this patch. > > There is no change for cpuv3 since '*(u64 *)(r10 - 8) = 0' > > is only generated with cpuv4. > > > > For cpuv4: > > $ ../veristat -C old.cpuv4.csv new.cpuv4.csv -e file,prog,insns,states -s '|insns_diff|' > > File Program Insns (A) Insns (B) Insns (DIFF) States (A) States (B) States (DIFF) > > ----------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- --------- --------- --------------- ---------- ---------- ------------- > > pyperf600_bpf_loop.bpf.linked3.o on_event 6066 4889 -1177 (-19.40%) 403 321 -82 (-20.35%) > > xdp_synproxy_kern.bpf.linked3.o syncookie_tc 12412 11719 -693 (-5.58%) 345 330 -15 (-4.35%) > > xdp_synproxy_kern.bpf.linked3.o syncookie_xdp 12478 11794 -684 (-5.48%) 346 331 -15 (-4.34%) > > test_cls_redirect.bpf.linked3.o cls_redirect 35483 35387 -96 (-0.27%) 2179 2177 -2 (-0.09%) > > local_storage_bench.bpf.linked3.o get_local 228 168 -60 (-26.32%) 17 14 -3 (-17.65%) > > test_l4lb_noinline.bpf.linked3.o balancer_ingress 4494 4522 +28 (+0.62%) 217 219 +2 (+0.92%) > > test_l4lb_noinline_dynptr.bpf.linked3.o balancer_ingress 1432 1455 +23 (+1.61%) 92 94 +2 (+2.17%) > > verifier_iterating_callbacks.bpf.linked3.o widening 52 41 -11 (-21.15%) 4 3 -1 (-25.00%) > > test_xdp_noinline.bpf.linked3.o balancer_ingress_v6 3462 3458 -4 (-0.12%) 216 216 +0 (+0.00%) > > ... > > > > test_l4lb_noinline and test_l4lb_noinline_dynptr has minor regression, but > > pyperf600_bpf_loop and local_storage_bench gets pretty good improvement. > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231205184248.1502704-1-andrii@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231205184248.1502704-9-andrii@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > Cc: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@xxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 2 +- > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_spill_fill.c | 4 ++-- > > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > > index a376eb609c41..17ad0228270e 100644 > > --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > > +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > > @@ -4491,7 +4491,7 @@ static int check_stack_write_fixed_off(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, > > if (fls64(reg->umax_value) > BITS_PER_BYTE * size) > > state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr.id = 0; > > } else if (!reg && !(off % BPF_REG_SIZE) && is_bpf_st_mem(insn) && > > - insn->imm != 0 && env->bpf_capable) { > > + env->bpf_capable) { > > the change makes sense, there is nothing special about insn->imm == 0 > case, so LGTM > > > struct bpf_reg_state fake_reg = {}; > > > > __mark_reg_known(&fake_reg, insn->imm); > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_spill_fill.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_spill_fill.c > > index 39fe3372e0e0..05de3de56e79 100644 > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_spill_fill.c > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_spill_fill.c > > @@ -496,13 +496,13 @@ SEC("raw_tp") > > __log_level(2) > > __success > > /* make sure fp-8 is all STACK_ZERO */ > > but we should update STACK_ZERO comments in this test > > and also, STACK_ZERO situation is still possible, right? E.g., when we > spill register at -4 offset, not -8. So I'd either extend or add > another test to make sure we still validate that STACK_ZERO slots > return precise zero. Can you add something like this? > > > > -__msg("2: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 0 ; R10=fp0 fp-8_w=00000000") > > +__msg("2: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 0 ; R10=fp0 fp-8_w=0") > > /* but fp-16 is spilled IMPRECISE zero const reg */ > > __msg("4: (7b) *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = r0 ; R0_w=0 R10=fp0 fp-16_w=0") > > /* validate that assigning R2 from STACK_ZERO doesn't mark register > > * precise immediately; if necessary, it will be marked precise later > > */ > > -__msg("6: (71) r2 = *(u8 *)(r10 -1) ; R2_w=0 R10=fp0 fp-8_w=00000000") > > +__msg("6: (71) r2 = *(u8 *)(r10 -1) ; R2_w=0 R10=fp0 fp-8_w=0") > > /* similarly, when R2 is assigned from spilled register, it is initially > > * imprecise, but will be marked precise later once it is used in precise context > > */ And seems like test_verifier test is failing now ([0]): #114/p BPF_ST_MEM stack imm zero, variable offset FAIL Failed to load prog 'Invalid argument'! At program exit the register R0 has smin=0 smax=255 should have been in [0, 1] verification time 19 usec stack depth 32 processed 11 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 0 total_states 0 peak_states 0 mark_read 0 [0] https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/7389645653/job/20103046755 > > -- > > 2.34.1 > >
