diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/bpf/bpf_design_QA.rst')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/bpf/bpf_design_QA.rst | 53 |
1 files changed, 39 insertions, 14 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/bpf_design_QA.rst b/Documentation/bpf/bpf_design_QA.rst index 7cc9e368c1e9..cb402c59eca5 100644 --- a/Documentation/bpf/bpf_design_QA.rst +++ b/Documentation/bpf/bpf_design_QA.rst @@ -36,27 +36,27 @@ 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? +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? +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? +Q: Can BPF programs access instruction pointer or return address? ----------------------------------------------------------------- A: NO. -Q: can BPF programs access stack pointer ? +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 +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? @@ -66,8 +66,8 @@ 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 +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. @@ -75,9 +75,9 @@ 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 +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 +jump tables, read-only sections, and all other normal constructs that C code can produce. Q: Can loops be supported in a safe way? @@ -85,8 +85,33 @@ 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. +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 --------------------------- @@ -109,16 +134,16 @@ 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? +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? +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 +prints a suggestion to use unsigned divide instead. Q: Why BPF has implicit prologue and epilogue? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |