Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v14 01/13] sk_run_filter: add BPF_S_ANC_SECCOMP_LD_W | From | Eric Dumazet <> | Date | Sat, 17 Mar 2012 06:49:44 -0700 |
| |
Le samedi 17 mars 2012 à 21:14 +1100, Indan Zupancic a écrit : > On Wed, March 14, 2012 19:05, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > Le mercredi 14 mars 2012 à 08:59 +0100, Indan Zupancic a écrit : > > > >> The only remaining question is, is it worth the extra code to release > >> up to 32kB of unused memory? It seems a waste to not free it, but if > >> people think it's not worth it then let's just leave it around. > > > > Quite frankly its not an issue, given JIT BPF is not yet default > > enabled. > > And what if assuming JIT BPF would be default enabled? >
OK, so here are the reasons why I chose not doing this : ---------------------------------------------------------
1) When I wrote this code, I _wanted_ keeping the original BPF around for post morterm analysis. When we are 100% confident code is bug free, we might remove the "BPF source code", but I am not convinced.
2) Most filters are less than 1 Kbytes, and who run thousands of BPF network filters on a machine ? Do you have real cases ? Because in these cases, the vmalloc() PAGE granularity might be a problem anyway.
Some filters are setup for a very short period of time... (tcpdump for example setup a "ret 0" at the very beginning of a capture ). Doing the extra kmalloc()/copy/kfree() is a loss.
tcpdump -n -s 0 -c 1000 arp
[29211.083449] JIT code: ffffffffa0cbe000: 31 c0 c3 [29211.083481] flen=4 proglen=55 pass=3 image=ffffffffa0cc0000 [29211.083487] JIT code: ffffffffa0cc0000: 55 48 89 e5 48 83 ec 60 48 89 5d f8 44 8b 4f 68 [29211.083494] JIT code: ffffffffa0cc0010: 44 2b 4f 6c 4c 8b 87 e0 00 00 00 be 0c 00 00 00 [29211.083500] JIT code: ffffffffa0cc0020: e8 04 32 38 e0 3d 06 08 00 00 75 07 b8 ff ff 00 [29211.083506] JIT code: ffffffffa0cc0030: 00 eb 02 31 c0 c9 c3
> The current JIT doesn't handle negative offsets: The stuff that's handled > by __load_pointer(). Easiest solution would be to make it non-static and > call it instead of doing bpf_error. I guess __load_pointer was added later > and the JIT code didn't get updated.
I dont think so, check git history if you want :)
> > But gcc refuses to inline load_pointer, instead it inlines __load_pointer > and does the important checks first. Considering the current assembly code > does a call too, it could as well call load_pointer() directly. That would > save a lot of assembly code, handle all negative cases too and be pretty > much the same speed. The only question is if this slow down some other > archs than x86. What do you think?
You miss the point : 99.999 % of offsets are positive in filters.
Best is to not call load_pointer() and only call skb_copy_bits() if the data is not in skb head, but in some fragment.
I dont know, I never had to use negative offsets in my own filters. So in the BPF JIT I said : If we have a negative offset in a filter, just disable JIT code completely for this filter (lines 478-479).
Same for fancy instructions like BPF_S_ANC_NLATTR / BPF_S_ANC_NLATTR_NEST
Show me a real use first.
I am pragmatic : I spend time coding stuff if there is a real need.
> > The EMIT_COND_JMP(f_op, f_offset); should be in an else case, otherwise > it's superfluous. It's a harmless bug though. I haven't spotted anything > else yet.
Its not superflous, see my comment at the end of this mail.
> > You can get rid of all the "if (is_imm8(offsetof(struct sk_buff, len)))" > code by making sure everything is near: Somewhere at the start, just > add 127 to %rdi and a BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct sk_buff) > 255). >
This code is optimized away by the compiler, you know that ?
Adding "add 127 to rdi" is one more instruction, adding dependencies and making out slow path code more complex (calls to skb_copy_bits() in bpf_jit.S ...). Thats a bad idea.
> diff --git a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c > index 7c1b765..7e0f575 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c > +++ b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c > @@ -581,8 +581,9 @@ cond_branch: f_offset = addrs[i + filter[i].jf] - addrs[i]; > if (filter[i].jf) > EMIT_JMP(f_offset); > break; > + } else { > + EMIT_COND_JMP(f_op, f_offset); > } > - EMIT_COND_JMP(f_op, f_offset); > break; > default: > /* hmm, too complex filter, give up with jit compiler */ > > >
I see no change in your patch in the code generation.
if (filter[i].jt == 0), we want to EMIT_COND_JMP(f_op, f_offset); because we know at this point that filter[i].jf != 0) [ line 536 ]
if (filter[i].jt != 0), the break; in line 583 prevents the EMIT_COND_JMP(f_op, f_offset);
Thanks !
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |