Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 12:42 PM John Fastabend
> <john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 11:30 AM John Fastabend
> > > <john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 3:21 PM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 6/19/20 8:41 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 6:08 AM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > >> On 6/19/20 2:39 AM, John Fastabend wrote:
> > > > > > >>> John Fastabend wrote:
> > > > > > >>>> Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 11:58 AM John Fastabend
> > > > > > >>>>> <john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> [...]
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>> That would be great. Self-tests do work, but having more testing with
> > > > > > >>>>> real-world application would certainly help as well.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Thanks for all the follow up.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> I ran the change through some CI on my side and it passed so I can
> > > > > > >>>> complain about a few shifts here and there or just update my code or
> > > > > > >>>> just not change the return types on my side but I'm convinced its OK
> > > > > > >>>> in most cases and helps in some so...
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> I'll follow this up with a few more selftests to capture a couple of our
> > > > > > >>> patterns. These changes are subtle and I worry a bit that additional
> > > > > > >>> <<,s>> pattern could have the potential to break something.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Another one we didn't discuss that I found in our code base is feeding
> > > > > > >>> the output of a probe_* helper back into the size field (after some
> > > > > > >>> alu ops) of subsequent probe_* call. Unfortunately, the tests I ran
> > > > > > >>> today didn't cover that case.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> I'll put it on the list tomorrow and encode these in selftests. I'll
> > > > > > >>> let the mainainers decide if they want to wait for those or not.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Given potential fragility on verifier side, my preference would be that we
> > > > > > >> have the known variations all covered in selftests before moving forward in
> > > > > > >> order to make sure they don't break in any way. Back in [0] I've seen mostly
> > > > > > >> similar cases in the way John mentioned in other projects, iirc, sysdig was
> > > > > > >> another one. If both of you could hack up the remaining cases we need to
> > > > > > >> cover and then submit a combined series, that would be great. I don't think
> > > > > > >> we need to rush this optimization w/o necessary selftests.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There is no rush, but there is also no reason to delay it. I'd rather
> > > > > > > land it early in the libbpf release cycle and let people try it in
> > > > > > > their prod environments, for those concerned about such code patterns.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Andrii, define 'delay'. John mentioned above to put together few more
> > > > > > selftests today so that there is better coverage at least, why is that
> > > > > > an 'issue'? I'm not sure how you read 'late in release cycle' out of it,
> > > > > > it's still as early. The unsigned optimization for len <= MAX_LEN is
> > > > > > reasonable and makes sense, but it's still one [specific] variant only.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm totally fine waiting for John's tests, but I read your reply as a
> > > > > request to go dig up some more examples from sysdig and other
> > > > > projects, which I don't think I can commit to. So if it's just about
> > > > > waiting for John's examples, that's fine and sorry for
> > > > > misunderstanding.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't have a list of all the patterns that we might need to test.
> > > > > > > Going through all open-source BPF source code to identify possible
> > > > > > > patterns and then coding them up in minimal selftests is a bit too
> > > > > > > much for me, honestly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think we're probably talking past each other. John wrote above:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yep, sorry, I assumed more general context, not specifically John's reply.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>> I'll follow this up with a few more selftests to capture a couple of our
> > > > > > >>> patterns. These changes are subtle and I worry a bit that additional
> > > > > > >>> <<,s>> pattern could have the potential to break something.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So submitting this as a full series together makes absolutely sense to me,
> > > > > > so there's maybe not perfect but certainly more confidence that also other
> > > > > > patterns where the shifts optimized out in one case are then appearing in
> > > > > > another are tested on a best effort and run our kselftest suite.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Daniel
> > > >
> > > > Hi Andrii,
> > > >
> > > > How about adding this on-top of your selftests patch? It will cover the
> > > > cases we have now with 'len < 0' check vs 'len > MAX'. I had another case
> > > > where we feed the out 'len' back into other probes but this requires more
> > > > hackery than I'm willing to encode in a selftests. There seems to be
> > > > some better options to improve clang side + verifier and get a clean
> > > > working version in the future.
> > >
> > > Ok, sounds good. I'll add it as an extra patch. Not sure about all the
> > > conventions with preserving Signed-off-by. Would just keeping your
> > > Signed-off-by be ok? If you don't mind, though, I'll keep each
> > > handler{32,64}_{gt,lt} as 4 independent BPF programs, so that if any
> > > of them is unverifiable, it's easier to inspect the BPF assembly. Yell
> > > if you don't like this.
> >
> > works for me, go for it.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On the clang/verifier side though I think the root cause is we do a poor
> > > > job of tracking >>32, s<<32 case. How about we add a sign-extend instruction
> > > > to BPF? Then clang can emit BPF_SEXT_32_64 and verifier can correctly
> > > > account for it and finally backends can generate better code. This
> > > > will help here, but also any other place we hit the sext codegen.
> > > >
> > > > Alexei, Yonghong, any opinions for/against adding new insn? I think we
> > > > talked about doing it earlier.
> > >
> > > Seems like an overkill to me, honestly. I'd rather spend effort on
> > > teaching Clang to always generate `w1 = w0` for such a case (for
> > > alu32). For no-ALU32 recommendation would be to switch to ALU32, if
> > > you want to work with int instead of long and care about two bitshift
> > > operations. If you can stick to longs on no-ALU32, then no harm, no
> > > foul.
> > >
> >
> > Do you have an example of where clang doesn't generate just `w1 = w0`
> > for the alu32 case? It really should at this point I'm not aware of
> > any cases where it doesn't. I think you might have mentioned this
> > earlier but I'm not seeing it.
>
> Yeah, ALU32 + LONG for helpers + u32 for len variable. I actually call
> this out explicitly in the commit message for this patch.
>
Maybe we are just saying the same thing but the <<32, s>>32 pattern
from the ALU32 + LONG for helpers + u32 is becuase llvm generated a
LLVM IR sext instruction. We need the sext because its promoting a
u32 type to a long. We can't just replace those with MOV instructions
like we do with zext giving the `w1=w0`. We would have to "know" the
helper call zero'd the upper bits but this isn't C standard. My
suggestion to fix this is to generate a BPF_SEXT and then let the
verifier handle it and JITs generate good code for it. On x86
we have a sign-extending move MOVSX for example.
Trying to go the other way and enforce callees zero upper bits of
return register seems inconsistent and more difficult to implement.
> >
> > There are other cases where sext gets generated in normal code and
> > it would be nice to not always have to work around it.
