Adding upstream version 6.1.76.upstream/6.1.76upstream

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

1 files changed, 300 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..a210b8a4d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/bpf/bpf_design_QA.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,300 @@
+==============
+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.
+
+Q: What are the verifier limits?
+--------------------------------
+A: The only limit known to the user space is BPF_MAXINSNS (4096).
+It's the maximum number of instructions that the unprivileged bpf
+program can have. The verifier has various internal limits.
+Like the maximum number of instructions that can be explored during
+program analysis. Currently, that limit is set to 1 million.
+Which essentially means that the largest program can consist
+of 1 million NOP instructions. There is a limit to the maximum number
+of subsequent branches, a limit to the number of nested bpf-to-bpf
+calls, a limit to the number of the verifier states per instruction,
+a limit to the number of maps used by the program.
+All these limits can be hit with a sufficiently complex program.
+There are also non-numerical limits that can cause the program
+to be rejected. The verifier used to recognize only pointer + constant
+expressions. Now it can recognize pointer + bounded_register.
+bpf_lookup_map_elem(key) had a requirement that 'key' must be
+a pointer to the stack. Now, 'key' can be a pointer to map value.
+The verifier is steadily getting 'smarter'. The limits are
+being removed. The only way to know that the program is going to
+be accepted by the verifier is to try to load it.
+The bpf development process guarantees that the future kernel
+versions will accept all bpf programs that were accepted by
+the earlier versions.
+
+
+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.
+
+But some optimizations on zero-ing the upper 32 bits for BPF registers are
+available, and can be leveraged to improve the performance of JITed BPF
+programs for 32-bit architectures.
+
+Starting with version 7, LLVM is able to generate instructions that operate
+on 32-bit subregisters, provided the option -mattr=+alu32 is passed for
+compiling a program. Furthermore, the verifier can now mark the
+instructions for which zero-ing the upper bits of the destination register
+is required, and insert an explicit zero-extension (zext) instruction
+(a mov32 variant). This means that for architectures without zext hardware
+support, the JIT back-ends do not need to clear the upper bits for
+subregisters written by alu32 instructions or narrow loads. Instead, the
+back-ends simply need to support code generation for that mov32 variant,
+and to overwrite bpf_jit_needs_zext() to make it return "true" (in order to
+enable zext insertion in the verifier).
+
+Note that it is possible for a JIT back-end to have partial hardware
+support for zext. In that case, if verifier zext insertion is enabled,
+it could lead to the insertion of unnecessary zext instructions. Such
+instructions could be removed by creating a simple peephole inside the JIT
+back-end: if one instruction has hardware support for zext and if the next
+instruction is an explicit zext, then the latter can be skipped when doing
+the code generation.
+
+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 there is one specific exception to tracing programs
+which are using helpers like bpf_probe_read() to walk kernel internal
+data structures and compile with kernel internal headers. Both of these
+kernel internals are subject to change and can break with newer kernels
+such that the program needs to be adapted accordingly.
+
+Q: Are tracepoints part of the stable ABI?
+------------------------------------------
+A: NO. Tracepoints are tied to internal implementation details hence they are
+subject to change and can break with newer kernels. BPF programs need to change
+accordingly when this happens.
+
+Q: Are places where kprobes can attach part of the stable ABI?
+--------------------------------------------------------------
+A: NO. The places to which kprobes can attach are internal implementation
+details, which means that they are subject to change and can break with
+newer kernels. BPF programs need to change accordingly when this happens.
+
+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: 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.
+
+Q: Directly calling kernel function is an ABI?
+----------------------------------------------
+Q: Some kernel functions (e.g. tcp_slow_start) can be called
+by BPF programs.  Do these kernel functions become an ABI?
+
+A: NO.
+
+The kernel function protos will change and the bpf programs will be
+rejected by the verifier.  Also, for example, some of the bpf-callable
+kernel functions have already been used by other kernel tcp
+cc (congestion-control) implementations.  If any of these kernel
+functions has changed, both the in-tree and out-of-tree kernel tcp cc
+implementations have to be changed.  The same goes for the bpf
+programs and they have to be adjusted accordingly.
+
+Q: Attaching to arbitrary kernel functions is an ABI?
+-----------------------------------------------------
+Q: BPF programs can be attached to many kernel functions.  Do these
+kernel functions become part of the ABI?
+
+A: NO.
+
+The kernel function prototypes will change, and BPF programs attaching to
+them will need to change.  The BPF compile-once-run-everywhere (CO-RE)
+should be used in order to make it easier to adapt your BPF programs to
+different versions of the kernel.
+
+Q: Marking a function with BTF_ID makes that function an ABI?
+-------------------------------------------------------------
+A: NO.
+
+The BTF_ID macro does not cause a function to become part of the ABI
+any more than does the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL macro.