| Message ID | 20220119144942.305568-1-houtao1@huawei.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [bpf-next] bpf, arm64: enable kfunc call | expand |
On 1/19/22 3:49 PM, Hou Tao wrote: > Since commit b2eed9b58811 ("arm64/kernel: kaslr: reduce module > randomization range to 2 GB"), for arm64 whether KASLR is enabled > or not, the module is placed within 2GB of the kernel region, so > s32 in bpf_kfunc_desc is sufficient to represente the offset of > module function relative to __bpf_call_base. The only thing needed > is to override bpf_jit_supports_kfunc_call(). > > Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com> Lgtm, could we also add a BPF selftest to assert that this assumption won't break in future when bpf_jit_supports_kfunc_call() returns true? E.g. extending lib/test_bpf.ko could be an option, wdyt? > --- > arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c > index e96d4d87291f..74f9a9b6a053 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c > @@ -1143,6 +1143,11 @@ struct bpf_prog *bpf_int_jit_compile(struct bpf_prog *prog) > return prog; > } > > +bool bpf_jit_supports_kfunc_call(void) > +{ > + return true; > +} > + > u64 bpf_jit_alloc_exec_limit(void) > { > return VMALLOC_END - VMALLOC_START; >
Hi, On 1/25/2022 12:21 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 1/19/22 3:49 PM, Hou Tao wrote: >> Since commit b2eed9b58811 ("arm64/kernel: kaslr: reduce module >> randomization range to 2 GB"), for arm64 whether KASLR is enabled >> or not, the module is placed within 2GB of the kernel region, so >> s32 in bpf_kfunc_desc is sufficient to represente the offset of >> module function relative to __bpf_call_base. The only thing needed >> is to override bpf_jit_supports_kfunc_call(). >> >> Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com> > > Lgtm, could we also add a BPF selftest to assert that this assumption > won't break in future when bpf_jit_supports_kfunc_call() returns true? > > E.g. extending lib/test_bpf.ko could be an option, wdyt? Make sense. Will figure out how to done that. Regards, Tao > >> --- >> arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 5 +++++ >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c >> index e96d4d87291f..74f9a9b6a053 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c >> +++ b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c >> @@ -1143,6 +1143,11 @@ struct bpf_prog *bpf_int_jit_compile(struct bpf_prog >> *prog) >> return prog; >> } >> +bool bpf_jit_supports_kfunc_call(void) >> +{ >> + return true; >> +} >> + >> u64 bpf_jit_alloc_exec_limit(void) >> { >> return VMALLOC_END - VMALLOC_START; >> > > .
diff --git a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c index e96d4d87291f..74f9a9b6a053 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c +++ b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c @@ -1143,6 +1143,11 @@ struct bpf_prog *bpf_int_jit_compile(struct bpf_prog *prog) return prog; } +bool bpf_jit_supports_kfunc_call(void) +{ + return true; +} + u64 bpf_jit_alloc_exec_limit(void) { return VMALLOC_END - VMALLOC_START;
Since commit b2eed9b58811 ("arm64/kernel: kaslr: reduce module randomization range to 2 GB"), for arm64 whether KASLR is enabled or not, the module is placed within 2GB of the kernel region, so s32 in bpf_kfunc_desc is sufficient to represente the offset of module function relative to __bpf_call_base. The only thing needed is to override bpf_jit_supports_kfunc_call(). Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com> --- arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)