Merge git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next

Daniel Borkmann says:

====================
pull-request: bpf-next 2018-05-17

The following pull-request contains BPF updates for your *net-next* tree.

The main changes are:

1) Provide a new BPF helper for doing a FIB and neighbor lookup
   in the kernel tables from an XDP or tc BPF program. The helper
   provides a fast-path for forwarding packets. The API supports
   IPv4, IPv6 and MPLS protocols, but currently IPv4 and IPv6 are
   implemented in this initial work, from David (Ahern).

2) Just a tiny diff but huge feature enabled for nfp driver by
   extending the BPF offload beyond a pure host processing offload.
   Offloaded XDP programs are allowed to set the RX queue index and
   thus opening the door for defining a fully programmable RSS/n-tuple
   filter replacement. Once BPF decided on a queue already, the device
   data-path will skip the conventional RSS processing completely,
   from Jakub.

3) The original sockmap implementation was array based similar to
   devmap. However unlike devmap where an ifindex has a 1:1 mapping
   into the map there are use cases with sockets that need to be
   referenced using longer keys. Hence, sockhash map is added reusing
   as much of the sockmap code as possible, from John.

4) Introduce BTF ID. The ID is allocatd through an IDR similar as
   with BPF maps and progs. It also makes BTF accessible to user
   space via BPF_BTF_GET_FD_BY_ID and adds exposure of the BTF data
   through BPF_OBJ_GET_INFO_BY_FD, from Martin.

5) Enable BPF stackmap with build_id also in NMI context. Due to the
   up_read() of current->mm->mmap_sem build_id cannot be parsed.
   This work defers the up_read() via a per-cpu irq_work so that
   at least limited support can be enabled, from Song.

6) Various BPF JIT follow-up cleanups and fixups after the LD_ABS/LD_IND
   JIT conversion as well as implementation of an optimized 32/64 bit
   immediate load in the arm64 JIT that allows to reduce the number of
   emitted instructions; in case of tested real-world programs they
   were shrinking by three percent, from Daniel.

7) Add ifindex parameter to the libbpf loader in order to enable
   BPF offload support. Right now only iproute2 can load offloaded
   BPF and this will also enable libbpf for direct integration into
   other applications, from David (Beckett).

8) Convert the plain text documentation under Documentation/bpf/ into
   RST format since this is the appropriate standard the kernel is
   moving to for all documentation. Also add an overview README.rst,
   from Jesper.

9) Add __printf verification attribute to the bpf_verifier_vlog()
   helper. Though it uses va_list we can still allow gcc to check
   the format string, from Mathieu.

10) Fix a bash reference in the BPF selftest's Makefile. The '|& ...'
    is a bash 4.0+ feature which is not guaranteed to be available
    when calling out to shell, therefore use a more portable variant,
    from Joe.

11) Fix a 64 bit division in xdp_umem_reg() by using div_u64()
    instead of relying on the gcc built-in, from Björn.

12) Fix a sock hashmap kmalloc warning reported by syzbot when an
    overly large key size is used in hashmap then causing overflows
    in htab->elem_size. Reject bogus attr->key_size early in the
    sock_hash_alloc(), from Yonghong.

13) Ensure in BPF selftests when urandom_read is being linked that
    --build-id is always enabled so that test_stacktrace_build_id[_nmi]
    won't be failing, from Alexei.

14) Add bitsperlong.h as well as errno.h uapi headers into the tools
    header infrastructure which point to one of the arch specific
    uapi headers. This was needed in order to fix a build error on
    some systems for the BPF selftests, from Sirio.

15) Allow for short options to be used in the xdp_monitor BPF sample
    code. And also a bpf.h tools uapi header sync in order to fix a
    selftest build failure. Both from Prashant.

16) More formally clarify the meaning of ID in the direct packet access
    section of the BPF documentation, from Wang.
====================

Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <[email protected]>

Author: davem330

Documentation/bpf/README.rst

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+=================
+BPF documentation
+=================
+
+This directory contains documentation for the BPF (Berkeley Packet
+Filter) facility, with a focus on the extended BPF version (eBPF).
+
+This kernel side documentation is still work in progress.  The main
+textual documentation is (for historical reasons) described in
+`Documentation/networking/filter.txt`_, which describe both classical
+and extended BPF instruction-set.
+The Cilium project also maintains a `BPF and XDP Reference Guide`_
+that goes into great technical depth about the BPF Architecture.
+
+The primary info for the bpf syscall is available in the `man-pages`_
+for `bpf(2)`_.
+
+
+
+Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
+================================
+
+Two sets of Questions and Answers (Q&A) are maintained.
+
+* QA for common questions about BPF see: bpf_design_QA_
+
+* QA for developers interacting with BPF subsystem: bpf_devel_QA_
+
+
+.. Links:
+.. _bpf_design_QA: bpf_design_QA.rst
+.. _bpf_devel_QA:  bpf_devel_QA.rst
+.. _Documentation/networking/filter.txt: ../networking/filter.txt
+.. _man-pages: https://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
+.. _bpf(2): http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/bpf.2.html
+.. _BPF and XDP Reference Guide: http://cilium.readthedocs.io/en/latest/bpf/

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.