Merge git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next

Alexei Starovoitov says:

====================
pull-request: bpf-next 2021-12-30

The following pull-request contains BPF updates for your *net-next* tree.

We've added 72 non-merge commits during the last 20 day(s) which contain
a total of 223 files changed, 3510 insertions(+), 1591 deletions(-).

The main changes are:

1) Automatic setrlimit in libbpf when bpf is memcg's in the kernel, from Andrii.

2) Beautify and de-verbose verifier logs, from Christy.

3) Composable verifier types, from Hao.

4) bpf_strncmp helper, from Hou.

5) bpf.h header dependency cleanup, from Jakub.

6) get_func_[arg|ret|arg_cnt] helpers, from Jiri.

7) Sleepable local storage, from KP.

8) Extend kfunc with PTR_TO_CTX, PTR_TO_MEM argument support, from Kumar.
====================

Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <[email protected]>

Author: davem330

Documentation/bpf/classic_vs_extended.rst

@@ -0,0 +1,376 @@
+
+===================
+Classic BPF vs eBPF
+===================
+
+eBPF is designed to be JITed with one to one mapping, which can also open up
+the possibility for GCC/LLVM compilers to generate optimized eBPF code through
+an eBPF backend that performs almost as fast as natively compiled code.
+
+Some core changes of the eBPF format from classic BPF:
+
+- Number of registers increase from 2 to 10:
+
+  The old format had two registers A and X, and a hidden frame pointer. The
+  new layout extends this to be 10 internal registers and a read-only frame
+  pointer. Since 64-bit CPUs are passing arguments to functions via registers
+  the number of args from eBPF program to in-kernel function is restricted
+  to 5 and one register is used to accept return value from an in-kernel
+  function. Natively, x86_64 passes first 6 arguments in registers, aarch64/
+  sparcv9/mips64 have 7 - 8 registers for arguments; x86_64 has 6 callee saved
+  registers, and aarch64/sparcv9/mips64 have 11 or more callee saved registers.
+
+  Thus, all eBPF registers map one to one to HW registers on x86_64, aarch64,
+  etc, and eBPF calling convention maps directly to ABIs used by the kernel on
+  64-bit architectures.
+
+  On 32-bit architectures JIT may map programs that use only 32-bit arithmetic
+  and may let more complex programs to be interpreted.
+
+  R0 - R5 are scratch registers and eBPF program needs spill/fill them if
+  necessary across calls. Note that there is only one eBPF program (== one
+  eBPF main routine) and it cannot call other eBPF functions, it can only
+  call predefined in-kernel functions, though.
+
+- Register width increases from 32-bit to 64-bit:
+
+  Still, the semantics of the original 32-bit ALU operations are preserved
+  via 32-bit subregisters. All eBPF registers are 64-bit with 32-bit lower
+  subregisters that zero-extend into 64-bit if they are being written to.
+  That behavior maps directly to x86_64 and arm64 subregister definition, but
+  makes other JITs more difficult.
+
+  32-bit architectures run 64-bit eBPF programs via interpreter.
+  Their JITs may convert BPF programs that only use 32-bit subregisters into
+  native instruction set and let the rest being interpreted.
+
+  Operation is 64-bit, because on 64-bit architectures, pointers are also
+  64-bit wide, and we want to pass 64-bit values in/out of kernel functions,
+  so 32-bit eBPF registers would otherwise require to define register-pair
+  ABI, thus, there won't be able to use a direct eBPF register to HW register
+  mapping and JIT would need to do combine/split/move operations for every
+  register in and out of the function, which is complex, bug prone and slow.
+  Another reason is the use of atomic 64-bit counters.
+
+- Conditional jt/jf targets replaced with jt/fall-through:
+
+  While the original design has constructs such as ``if (cond) jump_true;
+  else jump_false;``, they are being replaced into alternative constructs like
+  ``if (cond) jump_true; /* else fall-through */``.
+
+- Introduces bpf_call insn and register passing convention for zero overhead
+  calls from/to other kernel functions:
+
+  Before an in-kernel function call, the eBPF program needs to
+  place function arguments into R1 to R5 registers to satisfy calling
+  convention, then the interpreter will take them from registers and pass
+  to in-kernel function. If R1 - R5 registers are mapped to CPU registers
+  that are used for argument passing on given architecture, the JIT compiler
+  doesn't need to emit extra moves. Function arguments will be in the correct
+  registers and BPF_CALL instruction will be JITed as single 'call' HW
+  instruction. This calling convention was picked to cover common call
+  situations without performance penalty.
+
+  After an in-kernel function call, R1 - R5 are reset to unreadable and R0 has
+  a return value of the function. Since R6 - R9 are callee saved, their state
+  is preserved across the call.
+
+  For example, consider three C functions::
+
+    u64 f1() { return (*_f2)(1); }
+    u64 f2(u64 a) { return f3(a + 1, a); }
+    u64 f3(u64 a, u64 b) { return a - b; }
+
+  GCC can compile f1, f3 into x86_64::
+
+    f1:
+	movl $1, %edi
+	movq _f2(%rip), %rax
+	jmp  *%rax
+    f3:
+	movq %rdi, %rax
+	subq %rsi, %rax
+	ret
+
+  Function f2 in eBPF may look like::
+
+    f2:
+	bpf_mov R2, R1
+	bpf_add R1, 1
+	bpf_call f3
+	bpf_exit
+
+  If f2 is JITed and the pointer stored to ``_f2``. The calls f1 -> f2 -> f3 and
+  returns will be seamless. Without JIT, __bpf_prog_run() interpreter needs to
+  be used to call into f2.
+
+  For practical reasons all eBPF programs have only one argument 'ctx' which is
+  already placed into R1 (e.g. on __bpf_prog_run() startup) and the programs
+  can call kernel functions with up to 5 arguments. Calls with 6 or more arguments
+  are currently not supported, but these restrictions can be lifted if necessary
+  in the future.
+
+  On 64-bit architectures all register map to HW registers one to one. For
+  example, x86_64 JIT compiler can map them as ...
+
+  ::
+
+    R0 - rax
+    R1 - rdi
+    R2 - rsi
+    R3 - rdx
+    R4 - rcx
+    R5 - r8
+    R6 - rbx
+    R7 - r13
+    R8 - r14
+    R9 - r15
+    R10 - rbp
+
+  ... since x86_64 ABI mandates rdi, rsi, rdx, rcx, r8, r9 for argument passing
+  and rbx, r12 - r15 are callee saved.
+
+  Then the following eBPF pseudo-program::
+
+    bpf_mov R6, R1 /* save ctx */
+    bpf_mov R2, 2
+    bpf_mov R3, 3
+    bpf_mov R4, 4
+    bpf_mov R5, 5
+    bpf_call foo
+    bpf_mov R7, R0 /* save foo() return value */
+    bpf_mov R1, R6 /* restore ctx for next call */
+    bpf_mov R2, 6
+    bpf_mov R3, 7
+    bpf_mov R4, 8
+    bpf_mov R5, 9
+    bpf_call bar
+    bpf_add R0, R7
+    bpf_exit
+
+  After JIT to x86_64 may look like::
+
+    push %rbp
+    mov %rsp,%rbp
+    sub $0x228,%rsp
+    mov %rbx,-0x228(%rbp)
+    mov %r13,-0x220(%rbp)
+    mov %rdi,%rbx
+    mov $0x2,%esi
+    mov $0x3,%edx
+    mov $0x4,%ecx
+    mov $0x5,%r8d
+    callq foo
+    mov %rax,%r13
+    mov %rbx,%rdi
+    mov $0x6,%esi
+    mov $0x7,%edx
+    mov $0x8,%ecx
+    mov $0x9,%r8d
+    callq bar
+    add %r13,%rax
+    mov -0x228(%rbp),%rbx
+    mov -0x220(%rbp),%r13
+    leaveq
+    retq
+
+  Which is in this example equivalent in C to::
+
+    u64 bpf_filter(u64 ctx)
+    {
+	return foo(ctx, 2, 3, 4, 5) + bar(ctx, 6, 7, 8, 9);
+    }
+
+  In-kernel functions foo() and bar() with prototype: u64 (*)(u64 arg1, u64
+  arg2, u64 arg3, u64 arg4, u64 arg5); will receive arguments in proper
+  registers and place their return value into ``%rax`` which is R0 in eBPF.
+  Prologue and epilogue are emitted by JIT and are implicit in the
+  interpreter. R0-R5 are scratch registers, so eBPF program needs to preserve
+  them across the calls as defined by calling convention.
+
+  For example the following program is invalid::
+
+    bpf_mov R1, 1
+    bpf_call foo
+    bpf_mov R0, R1
+    bpf_exit
+
+  After the call the registers R1-R5 contain junk values and cannot be read.
+  An in-kernel verifier.rst is used to validate eBPF programs.
+
+Also in the new design, eBPF is limited to 4096 insns, which means that any
+program will terminate quickly and will only call a fixed number of kernel
+functions. Original BPF and eBPF are two operand instructions,
+which helps to do one-to-one mapping between eBPF insn and x86 insn during JIT.
+
+The input context pointer for invoking the interpreter function is generic,
+its content is defined by a specific use case. For seccomp register R1 points
+to seccomp_data, for converted BPF filters R1 points to a skb.
+
+A program, that is translated internally consists of the following elements::
+
+  op:16, jt:8, jf:8, k:32    ==>    op:8, dst_reg:4, src_reg:4, off:16, imm:32
+
+So far 87 eBPF instructions were implemented. 8-bit 'op' opcode field
+has room for new instructions. Some of them may use 16/24/32 byte encoding. New
+instructions must be multiple of 8 bytes to preserve backward compatibility.
+
+eBPF is a general purpose RISC instruction set. Not every register and
+every instruction are used during translation from original BPF to eBPF.
+For example, socket filters are not using ``exclusive add`` instruction, but
+tracing filters may do to maintain counters of events, for example. Register R9
+is not used by socket filters either, but more complex filters may be running
+out of registers and would have to resort to spill/fill to stack.
+
+eBPF can be used as a generic assembler for last step performance
+optimizations, socket filters and seccomp are using it as assembler. Tracing
+filters may use it as assembler to generate code from kernel. In kernel usage
+may not be bounded by security considerations, since generated eBPF code
+may be optimizing internal code path and not being exposed to the user space.
+Safety of eBPF can come from the verifier.rst. In such use cases as
+described, it may be used as safe instruction set.
+
+Just like the original BPF, eBPF runs within a controlled environment,
+is deterministic and the kernel can easily prove that. The safety of the program
+can be determined in two steps: first step does depth-first-search to disallow
+loops and other CFG validation; second step starts from the first insn and
+descends all possible paths. It simulates execution of every insn and observes
+the state change of registers and stack.
+
+opcode encoding
+===============
+
+eBPF is reusing most of the opcode encoding from classic to simplify conversion
+of classic BPF to eBPF.
+
+For arithmetic and jump instructions the 8-bit 'code' field is divided into three
+parts::
+
+  +----------------+--------+--------------------+
+  |   4 bits       |  1 bit |   3 bits           |
+  | operation code | source | instruction class  |
+  +----------------+--------+--------------------+
+  (MSB)                                      (LSB)
+
+Three LSB bits store instruction class which is one of:
+
+  ===================     ===============
+  Classic BPF classes     eBPF classes
+  ===================     ===============
+  BPF_LD    0x00          BPF_LD    0x00
+  BPF_LDX   0x01          BPF_LDX   0x01
+  BPF_ST    0x02          BPF_ST    0x02
+  BPF_STX   0x03          BPF_STX   0x03
+  BPF_ALU   0x04          BPF_ALU   0x04
+  BPF_JMP   0x05          BPF_JMP   0x05
+  BPF_RET   0x06          BPF_JMP32 0x06
+  BPF_MISC  0x07          BPF_ALU64 0x07
+  ===================     ===============
+
+The 4th bit encodes the source operand ...
+
+    ::
+
+	BPF_K     0x00
+	BPF_X     0x08
+
+ * in classic BPF, this means::
+
+	BPF_SRC(code) == BPF_X - use register X as source operand
+	BPF_SRC(code) == BPF_K - use 32-bit immediate as source operand
+
+ * in eBPF, this means::
+
+	BPF_SRC(code) == BPF_X - use 'src_reg' register as source operand
+	BPF_SRC(code) == BPF_K - use 32-bit immediate as source operand
+
+... and four MSB bits store operation code.
+
+If BPF_CLASS(code) == BPF_ALU or BPF_ALU64 [ in eBPF ], BPF_OP(code) is one of::
+
+  BPF_ADD   0x00
+  BPF_SUB   0x10
+  BPF_MUL   0x20
+  BPF_DIV   0x30
+  BPF_OR    0x40
+  BPF_AND   0x50
+  BPF_LSH   0x60
+  BPF_RSH   0x70
+  BPF_NEG   0x80
+  BPF_MOD   0x90
+  BPF_XOR   0xa0
+  BPF_MOV   0xb0  /* eBPF only: mov reg to reg */
+  BPF_ARSH  0xc0  /* eBPF only: sign extending shift right */
+  BPF_END   0xd0  /* eBPF only: endianness conversion */
+
+If BPF_CLASS(code) == BPF_JMP or BPF_JMP32 [ in eBPF ], BPF_OP(code) is one of::
+
+  BPF_JA    0x00  /* BPF_JMP only */
+  BPF_JEQ   0x10
+  BPF_JGT   0x20
+  BPF_JGE   0x30
+  BPF_JSET  0x40
+  BPF_JNE   0x50  /* eBPF only: jump != */
+  BPF_JSGT  0x60  /* eBPF only: signed '>' */
+  BPF_JSGE  0x70  /* eBPF only: signed '>=' */
+  BPF_CALL  0x80  /* eBPF BPF_JMP only: function call */
+  BPF_EXIT  0x90  /* eBPF BPF_JMP only: function return */
+  BPF_JLT   0xa0  /* eBPF only: unsigned '<' */
+  BPF_JLE   0xb0  /* eBPF only: unsigned '<=' */
+  BPF_JSLT  0xc0  /* eBPF only: signed '<' */
+  BPF_JSLE  0xd0  /* eBPF only: signed '<=' */
+
+So BPF_ADD | BPF_X | BPF_ALU means 32-bit addition in both classic BPF
+and eBPF. There are only two registers in classic BPF, so it means A += X.
+In eBPF it means dst_reg = (u32) dst_reg + (u32) src_reg; similarly,
+BPF_XOR | BPF_K | BPF_ALU means A ^= imm32 in classic BPF and analogous
+src_reg = (u32) src_reg ^ (u32) imm32 in eBPF.
+
+Classic BPF is using BPF_MISC class to represent A = X and X = A moves.
+eBPF is using BPF_MOV | BPF_X | BPF_ALU code instead. Since there are no
+BPF_MISC operations in eBPF, the class 7 is used as BPF_ALU64 to mean
+exactly the same operations as BPF_ALU, but with 64-bit wide operands
+instead. So BPF_ADD | BPF_X | BPF_ALU64 means 64-bit addition, i.e.:
+dst_reg = dst_reg + src_reg
+
+Classic BPF wastes the whole BPF_RET class to represent a single ``ret``
+operation. Classic BPF_RET | BPF_K means copy imm32 into return register
+and perform function exit. eBPF is modeled to match CPU, so BPF_JMP | BPF_EXIT
+in eBPF means function exit only. The eBPF program needs to store return
+value into register R0 before doing a BPF_EXIT. Class 6 in eBPF is used as
+BPF_JMP32 to mean exactly the same operations as BPF_JMP, but with 32-bit wide
+operands for the comparisons instead.
+
+For load and store instructions the 8-bit 'code' field is divided as::
+
+  +--------+--------+-------------------+
+  | 3 bits | 2 bits |   3 bits          |
+  |  mode  |  size  | instruction class |
+  +--------+--------+-------------------+
+  (MSB)                             (LSB)
+
+Size modifier is one of ...
+
+::
+
+  BPF_W   0x00    /* word */
+  BPF_H   0x08    /* half word */
+  BPF_B   0x10    /* byte */
+  BPF_DW  0x18    /* eBPF only, double word */
+
+... which encodes size of load/store operation::
+
+ B  - 1 byte
+ H  - 2 byte
+ W  - 4 byte
+ DW - 8 byte (eBPF only)
+
+Mode modifier is one of::
+
+  BPF_IMM     0x00  /* used for 32-bit mov in classic BPF and 64-bit in eBPF */
+  BPF_ABS     0x20
+  BPF_IND     0x40
+  BPF_MEM     0x60
+  BPF_LEN     0x80  /* classic BPF only, reserved in eBPF */
+  BPF_MSH     0xa0  /* classic BPF only, reserved in eBPF */
+  BPF_ATOMIC  0xc0  /* eBPF only, atomic operations */

Documentation/bpf/index.rst

@@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ that goes into great technical depth about the BPF Architecture.
    helpers
    programs
    maps
+   classic_vs_extended.rst
    bpf_licensing
    test_debug
    other