Hi Ilias,
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 04:23:50PM +0300, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 03:35:04PM +0300, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 01:20:43PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 11:36:21AM +0300, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> > > > Running the eBPF test_verifier leads to random errors looking like this:
[...]
> > > > The reason seems to be the offset[] creation and usage ctx->offset[]
> > >
> > > "seems to be"? Are you unsure?
> >
> > Reading the history and other ports of the JIT implementation, I couldn't
> > tell if the decision on skipping the 1st entry was deliberate or not on
> > Aarch64. Reading through the mailist list didn't help either [1].
> > Skipping the 1st entry seems indeed to cause the problem.
> > I did run the patch though the BPF tests and showed no regressions + fixing
> > the error.
>
> I'll correct myself here.
> Looking into 7c2e988f400e ("bpf: fix x64 JIT code generation for jmp to 1st insn")
> explains things a bit better.
> Jumping back to the 1st insn wasn't allowed until eBPF bounded loops were
> introduced. That's what the 1st instruction was not saved in the original code.
>
> > >
> > > No Fixes: tag?
> >
> > I'll re-spin and apply one
> >
> Any suggestion on any Fixes I should apply? The original code was 'correct' and
> broke only when bounded loops and their self-tests were introduced.
Ouch, that's pretty bad as it means nobody is regression testing BPF on
arm64 with mainline. Damn.
The Fixes: tag should identify the commit beyond which we don't need to
backport the fix, so it sounds like introduction of bounded loops, according
to your analysis.
Will
