Skip to content

L
linux
Switch branch/tag
  1. 30 Nov, 2021 1 commit
  3. 29 Nov, 2021 4 commits
  5. 26 Nov, 2021 1 commit
    • Tiezhu Yang's avatar
      bpf, mips: Fix build errors about __NR_bpf undeclared · e32cb12f
      Tiezhu Yang authored 
      Add the __NR_bpf definitions to fix the following build errors for mips:

  $ cd tools/bpf/bpftool
  $ make
  [...]
  bpf.c:54:4: error: #error __NR_bpf not defined. libbpf does not support your arch.
   #  error __NR_bpf not defined. libbpf does not support your arch.
      ^~~~~
  bpf.c: In function ‘sys_bpf’:
  bpf.c:66:17: error: ‘__NR_bpf’ undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean ‘__NR_brk’?
    return syscall(__NR_bpf, cmd, attr, size);
                   ^~~~~~~~
                   __NR_brk
  [...]
  In file included from gen_loader.c:15:0:
  skel_internal.h: In function ‘skel_sys_bpf’:
  skel_internal.h:53:17: error: ‘__NR_bpf’ undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean ‘__NR_brk’?
    return syscall(__NR_bpf, cmd, attr, size);
                   ^~~~~~~~
                   __NR_brk

We can see the following generated definitions:

  $ grep -r "#define __NR_bpf" arch/mips
  arch/mips/include/generated/uapi/asm/unistd_o32.h:#define __NR_bpf (__NR_Linux + 355)
  arch/mips/include/generated/uapi/asm/unistd_n64.h:#define __NR_bpf (__NR_Linux + 315)
  arch/mips/include/generated/uapi/asm/unistd_n32.h:#define __NR_bpf (__NR_Linux + 319)

The __NR_Linux is defined in arch/mips/include/uapi/asm/unistd.h:

  $ grep -r "#define __NR_Linux" arch/mips
  arch/mips/include/uapi/asm/unistd.h:#define __NR_Linux	4000
  arch/mips/include/uapi/asm/unistd.h:#define __NR_Linux	5000
  arch/mips/include/uapi/asm/unistd.h:#define __NR_Linux	6000

That is to say, __NR_bpf is:

  4000 + 355 = 4355 for mips o32,
  6000 + 319 = 6319 for mips n32,
  5000 + 315 = 5315 for mips n64.

So use the GCC pre-defined macro _ABIO32, _ABIN32 and _ABI64 [1] to define
the corresponding __NR_bpf.

This patch is similar with commit bad1926d ("bpf, s390: fix build for
libbpf and selftest suite").

  [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blob;f=gcc/config/mips/mips.h#l549Signed-off-by: default avatarTiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn>
Signed-off-by: default avatarDaniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/1637804167-8323-1-git-send-email-yangtiezhu@loongson.cn
      e32cb12f
  7. 25 Nov, 2021 18 commits
  9. 23 Nov, 2021 1 commit
  11. 19 Nov, 2021 4 commits
  13. 18 Nov, 2021 1 commit
  15. 17 Nov, 2021 7 commits
  17. 16 Nov, 2021 3 commits
    • Andrii Nakryiko's avatar
      selftests/bpf: Add uprobe triggering overhead benchmarks · d41bc48b
      Andrii Nakryiko authored 
      Add benchmark to measure overhead of uprobes and uretprobes. Also have
a baseline (no uprobe attached) benchmark.

On my dev machine, baseline benchmark can trigger 130M user_target()
invocations. When uprobe is attached, this falls to just 700K. With
uretprobe, we get down to 520K:

  $ sudo ./bench trig-uprobe-base -a
  Summary: hits  131.289 ± 2.872M/s

  # UPROBE
  $ sudo ./bench -a trig-uprobe-without-nop
  Summary: hits    0.729 ± 0.007M/s

  $ sudo ./bench -a trig-uprobe-with-nop
  Summary: hits    1.798 ± 0.017M/s

  # URETPROBE
  $ sudo ./bench -a trig-uretprobe-without-nop
  Summary: hits    0.508 ± 0.012M/s

  $ sudo ./bench -a trig-uretprobe-with-nop
  Summary: hits    0.883 ± 0.008M/s

So there is almost 2.5x performance difference between probing nop vs
non-nop instruction for entry uprobe. And 1.7x difference for uretprobe.

This means that non-nop uprobe overhead is around 1.4 microseconds for uprobe
and 2 microseconds for non-nop uretprobe.

For nop variants, uprobe and uretprobe overhead is down to 0.556 and
1.13 microseconds, respectively.

For comparison, just doing a very low-overhead syscall (with no BPF
programs attached anywhere) gives:

  $ sudo ./bench trig-base -a
  Summary: hits    4.830 ± 0.036M/s

So uprobes are about 2.67x slower than pure context switch.
Signed-off-by: default avatarAndrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarDaniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211116013041.4072571-1-andrii@kernel.org
      d41bc48b
    • Tiezhu Yang's avatar
      bpf: Change value of MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT from 32 to 33 · ebf7f6f0
      Tiezhu Yang authored 
      In the current code, the actual max tail call count is 33 which is greater
than MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT (defined as 32). The actual limit is not consistent
with the meaning of MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT and thus confusing at first glance.
We can see the historical evolution from commit 04fd61ab ("bpf: allow
bpf programs to tail-call other bpf programs") and commit f9dabe01
("bpf: Undo off-by-one in interpreter tail call count limit"). In order
to avoid changing existing behavior, the actual limit is 33 now, this is
reasonable.

After commit 874be05f ("bpf, tests: Add tail call test suite"), we can
see there exists failed testcase.

On all archs when CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON is not set:
 # echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable
 # modprobe test_bpf
 # dmesg | grep -w FAIL
 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:0 ret 34 != 33 FAIL

On some archs:
 # echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable
 # modprobe test_bpf
 # dmesg | grep -w FAIL
 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 ret 34 != 33 FAIL

Although the above failed testcase has been fixed in commit 18935a72
("bpf/tests: Fix error in tail call limit tests"), it would still be good
to change the value of MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT from 32 to 33 to make the code
more readable.

The 32-bit x86 JIT was using a limit of 32, just fix the wrong comments and
limit to 33 tail calls as the constant MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT updated. For the
mips64 JIT, use "ori" instead of "addiu" as suggested by Johan Almbladh.
For the riscv JIT, use RV_REG_TCC directly to save one register move as
suggested by Björn Töpel. For the other implementations, no function changes,
it does not change the current limit 33, the new value of MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT
can reflect the actual max tail call count, the related tail call testcases
in test_bpf module and selftests can work well for the interpreter and the
JIT.

Here are the test results on x86_64:

 # uname -m
 x86_64
 # echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable
 # modprobe test_bpf test_suite=test_tail_calls
 # dmesg | tail -1
 test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 8 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [0/8 JIT'ed]
 # rmmod test_bpf
 # echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable
 # modprobe test_bpf test_suite=test_tail_calls
 # dmesg | tail -1
 test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 8 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [8/8 JIT'ed]
 # rmmod test_bpf
 # ./test_progs -t tailcalls
 #142 tailcalls:OK
 Summary: 1/11 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
Signed-off-by: default avatarTiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn>
Signed-off-by: default avatarDaniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Tested-by: default avatarJohan Almbladh <johan.almbladh@anyfinetworks.com>
Tested-by: default avatarIlya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>
Acked-by: default avatarBjörn Töpel <bjorn@kernel.org>
Acked-by: default avatarJohan Almbladh <johan.almbladh@anyfinetworks.com>
Acked-by: default avatarIlya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/1636075800-3264-1-git-send-email-yangtiezhu@loongson.cn
      ebf7f6f0
    • Quentin Monnet's avatar
      selftests/bpf: Configure dir paths via env in test_bpftool_synctypes.py · e12cd158
      Quentin Monnet authored 
      Script test_bpftool_synctypes.py parses a number of files in the bpftool
directory (or even elsewhere in the repo) to make sure that the list of
types or options in those different files are consistent. Instead of
having fixed paths, let's make the directories configurable through
environment variable. This should make easier in the future to run the
script in a different setup, for example on an out-of-tree bpftool
mirror with a different layout.
Signed-off-by: default avatarQuentin Monnet <quentin@isovalent.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarDaniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211115225844.33943-4-quentin@isovalent.com
      e12cd158
GitLab Nexedi Edition | About GitLab | About Nexedi | 沪ICP备2021021310号-2 | 沪ICP备2021021310号-7