diff options
author | Alexei Starovoitov <ast@fb.com> | 2017-10-30 19:39:56 -0700 |
---|---|---|
committer | David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> | 2017-11-01 21:01:47 +0900 |
commit | 2e39748a4231a893f057567e9b880ab34ea47aef (patch) | |
tree | d113bae8e7774e5c395da67bff55b6adc7eb77f3 /Documentation | |
parent | da13c59b9936dfedcf9f2203bd29fbf83ad672bf (diff) | |
download | linux-2e39748a4231a893f057567e9b880ab34ea47aef.tar.bz2 |
bpf: document answers to common questions about BPF
to address common misconceptions about what BPF is and what it's not
add short BPF Q&A that clarifies core BPF design principles and
answers some common questions.
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation')
-rw-r--r-- | Documentation/bpf/bpf_design_QA.txt | 156 |
1 files changed, 156 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/bpf_design_QA.txt b/Documentation/bpf/bpf_design_QA.txt new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..f3e458a0bb2f --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/bpf/bpf_design_QA.txt @@ -0,0 +1,156 @@ +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. + +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. + +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: 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 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: 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: Can BPF functionality such as new program or map types, new + helpers, etc be added out of kernel module code? +A: NO. |