On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 6:40 PM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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;
Ohh. Thanks for explaining. Applied.
