Switch most of BPF helper definitions from returning int to long. These
definitions are coming from comments in BPF UAPI header and are used to
generate bpf_helper_defs.h (under libbpf) to be later included and used from
BPF programs.

In actual in-kernel implementation, all the helpers are defined as returning
u64, but due to some historical reasons, most of them are actually defined as
returning int in UAPI (usually, to return 0 on success, and negative value on
error).

This actually causes Clang to quite often generate sub-optimal code, because
compiler believes that return value is 32-bit, and in a lot of cases has to be
up-converted (usually with a pair of 32-bit bit shifts) to 64-bit values,
before they can be used further in BPF code.

Besides just "polluting" the code, these 32-bit shifts quite often cause
problems for cases in which return value matters. This is especially the case
for the family of bpf_probe_read_str() functions. There are few other similar
helpers (e.g., bpf_read_branch_records()), in which return value is used by
BPF program logic to record variable-length data and process it. For such
cases, BPF program logic carefully manages offsets within some array or map to
read variable-length data. For such uses, it's crucial for BPF verifier to
track possible range of register values to prove that all the accesses happen
within given memory bounds. Those extraneous zero-extending bit shifts,
inserted by Clang (and quite often interleaved with other code, which makes
the issues even more challenging and sometimes requires employing extra
per-variable compiler barriers), throws off verifier logic and makes it mark
registers as having unknown variable offset. We'll study this pattern a bit
later below.

Another common pattern is to check return of BPF helper for non-zero state to
detect error conditions and attempt alternative actions in such case. Even in
this simple and straightforward case, this 32-bit vs BPF's native 64-bit mode
quite often leads to sub-optimal and unnecessary extra code. We'll look at
this pattern as well.

Clang's BPF target supports two modes of code generation: ALU32, in which it
is capable of using lower 32-bit parts of registers, and no-ALU32, in which
only full 64-bit registers are being used. ALU32 mode somewhat mitigates the
above described problems, but not in all cases.

This patch switches all the cases in which BPF helpers return 0 or negative
error from returning int to returning long. It is shown below that such change
in definition leads to equivalent or better code. No-ALU32 mode benefits more,
but ALU32 mode doesn't degrade or still gets improved code generation.

Another class of cases switched from int to long are bpf_probe_read_str()-like
helpers, which encode successful case as non-negative values, while still
returning negative value for errors.

In all of such cases, correctness is preserved due to two's complement
encoding of negative values and the fact that all helpers return values with
32-bit absolute value. Two's complement ensures that for negative values
higher 32 bits are all ones and when truncated, leave valid negative 32-bit
value with the same value. Non-negative values have upper 32 bits set to zero
and similarly preserve value when high 32 bits are truncated. This means that
just casting to int/u32 is correct and efficient (and in ALU32 mode doesn't
require any extra shifts).

To minimize the chances of regressions, two code patterns were investigated,
as mentioned above. For both patterns, BPF assembly was analyzed in
ALU32/NO-ALU32 compiler modes, both with current 32-bit int return type and
new 64-bit long return type.

Case 1. Variable-length data reading and concatenation. This is quite
ubiquitous pattern in tracing/monitoring applications, reading data like
process's environment variables, file path, etc. In such case, many pieces of
string-like variable-length data are read into a single big buffer, and at the
end of the process, only a part of array containing actual data is sent to
user-space for further processing. This case is tested in test_varlen.c
selftest (in the next patch). Code flow is roughly as follows:

  void *payload = &sample->payload;
  u64 len;

  len = bpf_probe_read_kernel_str(payload, MAX_SZ1, &source_data1);
  if (len <= MAX_SZ1) {
      payload += len;
      sample->len1 = len;
  }
  len = bpf_probe_read_kernel_str(payload, MAX_SZ2, &source_data2);
  if (len <= MAX_SZ2) {
      payload += len;
      sample->len2 = len;
  }
  /* and so on */
  sample->total_len = payload - &sample->payload;
  /* send over, e.g., perf buffer */

There could be two variations with slightly different code generated: when len
is 64-bit integer and when it is 32-bit integer. Both variations were analysed.
BPF assembly instructions between two successive invocations of
bpf_probe_read_kernel_str() were used to check code regressions. Results are
below, followed by short analysis. Left side is using helpers with int return
type, the right one is after the switch to long.

ALU32 + INT                                ALU32 + LONG
===========                                ============

64-BIT (13 insns):                         64-BIT (10 insns):
------------------------------------       ------------------------------------
  17:   call 115                             17:   call 115
  18:   if w0 > 256 goto +9 <LBB0_4>         18:   if r0 > 256 goto +6 <LBB0_4>
  19:   w1 = w0                              19:   r1 = 0 ll
  20:   r1 <<= 32                            21:   *(u64 *)(r1 + 0) = r0
  21:   r1 s>>= 32                           22:   r6 = 0 ll
  22:   r2 = 0 ll                            24:   r6 += r0
  24:   *(u64 *)(r2 + 0) = r1              00000000000000c8 <LBB0_4>:
  25:   r6 = 0 ll                            25:   r1 = r6
  27:   r6 += r1                             26:   w2 = 256
00000000000000e0 <LBB0_4>:                   27:   r3 = 0 ll
  28:   r1 = r6                              29:   call 115
  29:   w2 = 256
  30:   r3 = 0 ll
  32:   call 115

32-BIT (11 insns):                         32-BIT (12 insns):
------------------------------------       ------------------------------------
  17:   call 115                             17:   call 115
  18:   if w0 > 256 goto +7 <LBB1_4>         18:   if w0 > 256 goto +8 <LBB1_4>
  19:   r1 = 0 ll                            19:   r1 = 0 ll
  21:   *(u32 *)(r1 + 0) = r0                21:   *(u32 *)(r1 + 0) = r0
  22:   w1 = w0                              22:   r0 <<= 32
  23:   r6 = 0 ll                            23:   r0 >>= 32
  25:   r6 += r1                             24:   r6 = 0 ll
00000000000000d0 <LBB1_4>:                   26:   r6 += r0
  26:   r1 = r6                            00000000000000d8 <LBB1_4>:
  27:   w2 = 256                             27:   r1 = r6
  28:   r3 = 0 ll                            28:   w2 = 256
  30:   call 115                             29:   r3 = 0 ll
                                             31:   call 115

In ALU32 mode, the variant using 64-bit length variable clearly wins and
avoids unnecessary zero-extension bit shifts. In practice, this is even more
important and good, because BPF code won't need to do extra checks to "prove"
that payload/len are within good bounds.

32-bit len is one instruction longer. Clang decided to do 64-to-32 casting
with two bit shifts, instead of equivalent `w1 = w0` assignment. The former
uses extra register. The latter might potentially lose some range information,
but not for 32-bit value. So in this case, verifier infers that r0 is [0, 256]
after check at 18:, and shifting 32 bits left/right keeps that range intact.
We should probably look into Clang's logic and see why it chooses bitshifts
over sub-register assignments for this.

NO-ALU32 + INT                             NO-ALU32 + LONG
==============                             ===============

64-BIT (14 insns):                         64-BIT (10 insns):
------------------------------------       ------------------------------------
  17:   call 115                             17:   call 115
  18:   r0 <<= 32                            18:   if r0 > 256 goto +6 <LBB0_4>
  19:   r1 = r0                              19:   r1 = 0 ll
  20:   r1 >>= 32                            21:   *(u64 *)(r1 + 0) = r0
  21:   if r1 > 256 goto +7 <LBB0_4>         22:   r6 = 0 ll
  22:   r0 s>>= 32                           24:   r6 += r0
  23:   r1 = 0 ll                          00000000000000c8 <LBB0_4>:
  25:   *(u64 *)(r1 + 0) = r0                25:   r1 = r6
  26:   r6 = 0 ll                            26:   r2 = 256
  28:   r6 += r0                             27:   r3 = 0 ll
00000000000000e8 <LBB0_4>:                   29:   call 115
  29:   r1 = r6
  30:   r2 = 256
  31:   r3 = 0 ll
  33:   call 115

32-BIT (13 insns):                         32-BIT (13 insns):
------------------------------------       ------------------------------------
  17:   call 115                             17:   call 115
  18:   r1 = r0                              18:   r1 = r0
  19:   r1 <<= 32                            19:   r1 <<= 32
  20:   r1 >>= 32                            20:   r1 >>= 32
  21:   if r1 > 256 goto +6 <LBB1_4>         21:   if r1 > 256 goto +6 <LBB1_4>
  22:   r2 = 0 ll                            22:   r2 = 0 ll
  24:   *(u32 *)(r2 + 0) = r0                24:   *(u32 *)(r2 + 0) = r0
  25:   r6 = 0 ll                            25:   r6 = 0 ll
  27:   r6 += r1                             27:   r6 += r1
00000000000000e0 <LBB1_4>:                 00000000000000e0 <LBB1_4>:
  28:   r1 = r6                              28:   r1 = r6
  29:   r2 = 256                             29:   r2 = 256
  30:   r3 = 0 ll                            30:   r3 = 0 ll
  32:   call 115                             32:   call 115

In NO-ALU32 mode, for the case of 64-bit len variable, Clang generates much
superior code, as expected, eliminating unnecessary bit shifts. For 32-bit
len, code is identical.

So overall, only ALU-32 32-bit len case is more-or-less equivalent and the
difference stems from internal Clang decision, rather than compiler lacking
enough information about types.

Case 2. Let's look at the simpler case of checking return result of BPF helper
for errors. The code is very simple:

  long bla;
  if (bpf_probe_read_kenerl(&bla, sizeof(bla), 0))
      return 1;
  else
      return 0;

ALU32 + CHECK (9 insns)                    ALU32 + CHECK (9 insns)
====================================       ====================================
  0:    r1 = r10                             0:    r1 = r10
  1:    r1 += -8                             1:    r1 += -8
  2:    w2 = 8                               2:    w2 = 8
  3:    r3 = 0                               3:    r3 = 0
  4:    call 113                             4:    call 113
  5:    w1 = w0                              5:    r1 = r0
  6:    w0 = 1                               6:    w0 = 1
  7:    if w1 != 0 goto +1 <LBB2_2>          7:    if r1 != 0 goto +1 <LBB2_2>
  8:    w0 = 0                               8:    w0 = 0
0000000000000048 <LBB2_2>:                 0000000000000048 <LBB2_2>:
  9:    exit                                 9:    exit

Almost identical code, the only difference is the use of full register
assignment (r1 = r0) vs half-registers (w1 = w0) in instruction #5. On 32-bit
architectures, new BPF assembly might be slightly less optimal, in theory. But
one can argue that's not a big issue, given that use of full registers is
still prevalent (e.g., for parameter passing).

NO-ALU32 + CHECK (11 insns)                NO-ALU32 + CHECK (9 insns)
====================================       ====================================
  0:    r1 = r10                             0:    r1 = r10
  1:    r1 += -8                             1:    r1 += -8
  2:    r2 = 8                               2:    r2 = 8
  3:    r3 = 0                               3:    r3 = 0
  4:    call 113                             4:    call 113
  5:    r1 = r0                              5:    r1 = r0
  6:    r1 <<= 32                            6:    r0 = 1
  7:    r1 >>= 32                            7:    if r1 != 0 goto +1 <LBB2_2>
  8:    r0 = 1                               8:    r0 = 0
  9:    if r1 != 0 goto +1 <LBB2_2>        0000000000000048 <LBB2_2>:
 10:    r0 = 0                               9:    exit
0000000000000058 <LBB2_2>:
 11:    exit

NO-ALU32 is a clear improvement, getting rid of unnecessary zero-extension bit
shifts.
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200623032224.4020118-1-andriin@fb.com