On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 5:33 PM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 5:25 PM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 5:14 PM Alexei Starovoitov
> > <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 5:00 PM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > __bpf_arch_text_poke does rewrite only for atomic nop5, emit_nops(xxx, 5)
> > > > emits non-atomic one which breaks fentry/fexit with k8 atomics:
> > > >
> > > > P6_NOP5 == P6_NOP5_ATOMIC (0f1f440000 == 0f1f440000)
> > > > K8_NOP5 != K8_NOP5_ATOMIC (6666906690 != 6666666690)
> > > >
> > > > Can be reproduced by doing "ideal_nops = k8_nops" in "arch_init_ideal_nops()
> > > > and running fexit_bpf2bpf selftest.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: e21aa341785c ("bpf: Fix fexit trampoline.")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 3 ++-
> > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> > > > index 72b5a57e9e31..b35fc8023884 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> > > > @@ -2012,7 +2012,8 @@ int arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline(struct bpf_tramp_image *im, void *image, void *i
> > > > /* remember return value in a stack for bpf prog to access */
> > > > emit_stx(&prog, BPF_DW, BPF_REG_FP, BPF_REG_0, -8);
> > > > im->ip_after_call = prog;
> > > > - emit_nops(&prog, 5);
> > > > + memcpy(prog, ideal_nops[NOP_ATOMIC5], X86_PATCH_SIZE);
> > > > + prog += X86_PATCH_SIZE;
> > >
> > > I'm well aware, but ideal_nops are pretty much gone already.
> > > The changes are already in the -tip tree.
> > > So I decided to reduce the conflicts for the merge window.
> > >
> > > Do you actually see the breakage or it's purely theoretical?
> > We do see it, but it's on our tree that pulls from bpf.
> > And it obviously doesn't have that "x86: Remove dynamic NOP selection" yet.
> > Thanks for the pointer, I guess I can just wait for the real merge then.
>
> If it breaks the real users we have to land the fix, but let me ask how
> come that you run with k8 cpu? k8 does other nasty things.
> Do you run with all of amd errata?
It's not amd, it's intel:
cpu family : 6
model : 45
model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2689 0 @ 2.60GHz
I think I'm hitting the following from the arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c:
/*
* Due to a decoder implementation quirk, some
* specific Intel CPUs actually perform better with
* the "k8_nops" than with the SDM-recommended NOPs.
*/
if (boot_cpu_data.x86 == 6 &&
boot_cpu_data.x86_model >= 0x0f &&
boot_cpu_data.x86_model != 0x1c &&
boot_cpu_data.x86_model != 0x26 &&
boot_cpu_data.x86_model != 0x27 &&
boot_cpu_data.x86_model < 0x30) {
ideal_nops = k8_nops;
