Adding upstream version 4.19.249.upstream/4.19.249

Signed-off-by: Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-linux.org>

1 files changed, 221 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/bpf_design_QA.rst b/Documentation/bpf/bpf_design_QA.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..6780a6d81
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/bpf/bpf_design_QA.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,221 @@
+==============
+BPF Design Q&A
+==============
+
+BPF extensibility and applicability to networking, tracing, security
+in the linux kernel and several user space implementations of BPF
+virtual machine led to a number of misunderstanding on what BPF actually is.
+This short QA is an attempt to address that and outline a direction
+of where BPF is heading long term.
+
+.. contents::
+    :local:
+    :depth: 3
+
+Questions and Answers
+=====================
+
+Q: Is BPF a generic instruction set similar to x64 and arm64?
+-------------------------------------------------------------
+A: NO.
+
+Q: Is BPF a generic virtual machine ?
+-------------------------------------
+A: NO.
+
+BPF is generic instruction set *with* C calling convention.
+-----------------------------------------------------------
+
+Q: Why C calling convention was chosen?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+A: Because BPF programs are designed to run in the linux kernel
+which is written in C, hence BPF defines instruction set compatible
+with two most used architectures x64 and arm64 (and takes into
+consideration important quirks of other architectures) and
+defines calling convention that is compatible with C calling
+convention of the linux kernel on those architectures.
+
+Q: can multiple return values be supported in the future?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+A: NO. BPF allows only register R0 to be used as return value.
+
+Q: can more than 5 function arguments be supported in the future?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+A: NO. BPF calling convention only allows registers R1-R5 to be used
+as arguments. BPF is not a standalone instruction set.
+(unlike x64 ISA that allows msft, cdecl and other conventions)
+
+Q: can BPF programs access instruction pointer or return address?
+-----------------------------------------------------------------
+A: NO.
+
+Q: can BPF programs access stack pointer ?
+------------------------------------------
+A: NO.
+
+Only frame pointer (register R10) is accessible.
+From compiler point of view it's necessary to have stack pointer.
+For example LLVM defines register R11 as stack pointer in its
+BPF backend, but it makes sure that generated code never uses it.
+
+Q: Does C-calling convention diminishes possible use cases?
+-----------------------------------------------------------
+A: YES.
+
+BPF design forces addition of major functionality in the form
+of kernel helper functions and kernel objects like BPF maps with
+seamless interoperability between them. It lets kernel call into
+BPF programs and programs call kernel helpers with zero overhead.
+As all of them were native C code. That is particularly the case
+for JITed BPF programs that are indistinguishable from
+native kernel C code.
+
+Q: Does it mean that 'innovative' extensions to BPF code are disallowed?
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+A: Soft yes.
+
+At least for now until BPF core has support for
+bpf-to-bpf calls, indirect calls, loops, global variables,
+jump tables, read only sections and all other normal constructs
+that C code can produce.
+
+Q: Can loops be supported in a safe way?
+----------------------------------------
+A: It's not clear yet.
+
+BPF developers are trying to find a way to
+support bounded loops where the verifier can guarantee that
+the program terminates in less than 4096 instructions.
+
+Instruction level questions
+---------------------------
+
+Q: LD_ABS and LD_IND instructions vs C code
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Q: How come LD_ABS and LD_IND instruction are present in BPF whereas
+C code cannot express them and has to use builtin intrinsics?
+
+A: This is artifact of compatibility with classic BPF. Modern
+networking code in BPF performs better without them.
+See 'direct packet access'.
+
+Q: BPF instructions mapping not one-to-one to native CPU
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+Q: It seems not all BPF instructions are one-to-one to native CPU.
+For example why BPF_JNE and other compare and jumps are not cpu-like?
+
+A: This was necessary to avoid introducing flags into ISA which are
+impossible to make generic and efficient across CPU architectures.
+
+Q: why BPF_DIV instruction doesn't map to x64 div?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+A: Because if we picked one-to-one relationship to x64 it would have made
+it more complicated to support on arm64 and other archs. Also it
+needs div-by-zero runtime check.
+
+Q: why there is no BPF_SDIV for signed divide operation?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+A: Because it would be rarely used. llvm errors in such case and
+prints a suggestion to use unsigned divide instead
+
+Q: Why BPF has implicit prologue and epilogue?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+A: Because architectures like sparc have register windows and in general
+there are enough subtle differences between architectures, so naive
+store return address into stack won't work. Another reason is BPF has
+to be safe from division by zero (and legacy exception path
+of LD_ABS insn). Those instructions need to invoke epilogue and
+return implicitly.
+
+Q: Why BPF_JLT and BPF_JLE instructions were not introduced in the beginning?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+A: Because classic BPF didn't have them and BPF authors felt that compiler
+workaround would be acceptable. Turned out that programs lose performance
+due to lack of these compare instructions and they were added.
+These two instructions is a perfect example what kind of new BPF
+instructions are acceptable and can be added in the future.
+These two already had equivalent instructions in native CPUs.
+New instructions that don't have one-to-one mapping to HW instructions
+will not be accepted.
+
+Q: BPF 32-bit subregister requirements
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+Q: BPF 32-bit subregisters have a requirement to zero upper 32-bits of BPF
+registers which makes BPF inefficient virtual machine for 32-bit
+CPU architectures and 32-bit HW accelerators. Can true 32-bit registers
+be added to BPF in the future?
+
+A: NO. The first thing to improve performance on 32-bit archs is to teach
+LLVM to generate code that uses 32-bit subregisters. Then second step
+is to teach verifier to mark operations where zero-ing upper bits
+is unnecessary. Then JITs can take advantage of those markings and
+drastically reduce size of generated code and improve performance.
+
+Q: Does BPF have a stable ABI?
+------------------------------
+A: YES. BPF instructions, arguments to BPF programs, set of helper
+functions and their arguments, recognized return codes are all part
+of ABI. However when tracing programs are using bpf_probe_read() helper
+to walk kernel internal datastructures and compile with kernel
+internal headers these accesses can and will break with newer
+kernels. The union bpf_attr -> kern_version is checked at load time
+to prevent accidentally loading kprobe-based bpf programs written
+for a different kernel. Networking programs don't do kern_version check.
+
+Q: How much stack space a BPF program uses?
+-------------------------------------------
+A: Currently all program types are limited to 512 bytes of stack
+space, but the verifier computes the actual amount of stack used
+and both interpreter and most JITed code consume necessary amount.
+
+Q: Can BPF be offloaded to HW?
+------------------------------
+A: YES. BPF HW offload is supported by NFP driver.
+
+Q: Does classic BPF interpreter still exist?
+--------------------------------------------
+A: NO. Classic BPF programs are converted into extend BPF instructions.
+
+Q: Can BPF call arbitrary kernel functions?
+-------------------------------------------
+A: NO. BPF programs can only call a set of helper functions which
+is defined for every program type.
+
+Q: Can BPF overwrite arbitrary kernel memory?
+---------------------------------------------
+A: NO.
+
+Tracing bpf programs can *read* arbitrary memory with bpf_probe_read()
+and bpf_probe_read_str() helpers. Networking programs cannot read
+arbitrary memory, since they don't have access to these helpers.
+Programs can never read or write arbitrary memory directly.
+
+Q: Can BPF overwrite arbitrary user memory?
+-------------------------------------------
+A: Sort-of.
+
+Tracing BPF programs can overwrite the user memory
+of the current task with bpf_probe_write_user(). Every time such
+program is loaded the kernel will print warning message, so
+this helper is only useful for experiments and prototypes.
+Tracing BPF programs are root only.
+
+Q: bpf_trace_printk() helper warning
+------------------------------------
+Q: When bpf_trace_printk() helper is used the kernel prints nasty
+warning message. Why is that?
+
+A: This is done to nudge program authors into better interfaces when
+programs need to pass data to user space. Like bpf_perf_event_output()
+can be used to efficiently stream data via perf ring buffer.
+BPF maps can be used for asynchronous data sharing between kernel
+and user space. bpf_trace_printk() should only be used for debugging.
+
+Q: New functionality via kernel modules?
+----------------------------------------
+Q: Can BPF functionality such as new program or map types, new
+helpers, etc be added out of kernel module code?
+
+A: NO.