Searched hist:59088 (Results 1 - 3 of 3) sorted by relevance
| /linux-master/include/linux/ | ||
| H A D | phy.h | diff 59088b5a Mon May 22 09:58:08 MDT 2023 Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk> net: phy: avoid kernel warning dump when stopping an errored PHY When taking a network interface down (or removing a SFP module) after the PHY has encountered an error, phy_stop() complains incorrectly that it was called from HALTED state. The reason this is incorrect is that the network driver will have called phy_start() when the interface was brought up, and the fact that the PHY has a problem bears no relationship to the administrative state of the interface. Taking the interface administratively down (which calls phy_stop()) is always the right thing to do after a successful phy_start() call, whether or not the PHY has encountered an error. Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk> Acked-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> |
| /linux-master/drivers/net/phy/ | ||
| H A D | phy.c | diff 59088b5a Mon May 22 09:58:08 MDT 2023 Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk> net: phy: avoid kernel warning dump when stopping an errored PHY When taking a network interface down (or removing a SFP module) after the PHY has encountered an error, phy_stop() complains incorrectly that it was called from HALTED state. The reason this is incorrect is that the network driver will have called phy_start() when the interface was brought up, and the fact that the PHY has a problem bears no relationship to the administrative state of the interface. Taking the interface administratively down (which calls phy_stop()) is always the right thing to do after a successful phy_start() call, whether or not the PHY has encountered an error. Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk> Acked-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> |
| /linux-master/kernel/bpf/ | ||
| H A D | verifier.c | diff fde2a388 Thu May 04 22:33:15 MDT 2023 Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> bpf: support precision propagation in the presence of subprogs Add support precision backtracking in the presence of subprogram frames in jump history. This means supporting a few different kinds of subprogram invocation situations, all requiring a slightly different handling in precision backtracking handling logic: - static subprogram calls; - global subprogram calls; - callback-calling helpers/kfuncs. For each of those we need to handle a few precision propagation cases: - what to do with precision of subprog returns (r0); - what to do with precision of input arguments; - for all of them callee-saved registers in caller function should be propagated ignoring subprog/callback part of jump history. N.B. Async callback-calling helpers (currently only bpf_timer_set_callback()) are transparent to all this because they set a separate async callback environment and thus callback's history is not shared with main program's history. So as far as all the changes in this commit goes, such helper is just a regular helper. Let's look at all these situation in more details. Let's start with static subprogram being called, using an exxerpt of a simple main program and its static subprog, indenting subprog's frame slightly to make everything clear. frame 0 frame 1 precision set ======= ======= ============= 9: r6 = 456; 10: r1 = 123; fr0: r6 11: call pc+10; fr0: r1, r6 22: r0 = r1; fr0: r6; fr1: r1 23: exit fr0: r6; fr1: r0 12: r1 = <map_pointer> fr0: r0, r6 13: r1 += r0; fr0: r0, r6 14: r1 += r6; fr0: r6 15: exit As can be seen above main function is passing 123 as single argument to an identity (`return x;`) subprog. Returned value is used to adjust map pointer offset, which forces r0 to be marked as precise. Then instruction #14 does the same for callee-saved r6, which will have to be backtracked all the way to instruction #9. For brevity, precision sets for instruction #13 and #14 are combined in the diagram above. First, for subprog calls, r0 returned from subprog (in frame 0) has to go into subprog's frame 1, and should be cleared from frame 0. So we go back into subprog's frame knowing we need to mark r0 precise. We then see that insn #22 sets r0 from r1, so now we care about marking r1 precise. When we pop up from subprog's frame back into caller at insn #11 we keep r1, as it's an argument-passing register, so we eventually find `10: r1 = 123;` and satify precision propagation chain for insn #13. This example demonstrates two sets of rules: - r0 returned after subprog call has to be moved into subprog's r0 set; - *static* subprog arguments (r1-r5) are moved back to caller precision set. Let's look at what happens with callee-saved precision propagation. Insn #14 mark r6 as precise. When we get into subprog's frame, we keep r6 in frame 0's precision set *only*. Subprog itself has its own set of independent r6-r10 registers and is not affected. When we eventually made our way out of subprog frame we keep r6 in precision set until we reach `9: r6 = 456;`, satisfying propagation. r6-r10 propagation is perhaps the simplest aspect, it always stays in its original frame. That's pretty much all we have to do to support precision propagation across *static subprog* invocation. Let's look at what happens when we have global subprog invocation. frame 0 frame 1 precision set ======= ======= ============= 9: r6 = 456; 10: r1 = 123; fr0: r6 11: call pc+10; # global subprog fr0: r6 12: r1 = <map_pointer> fr0: r0, r6 13: r1 += r0; fr0: r0, r6 14: r1 += r6; fr0: r6; 15: exit Starting from insn #13, r0 has to be precise. We backtrack all the way to insn #11 (call pc+10) and see that subprog is global, so was already validated in isolation. As opposed to static subprog, global subprog always returns unknown scalar r0, so that satisfies precision propagation and we drop r0 from precision set. We are done for insns #13. Now for insn #14. r6 is in precision set, we backtrack to `call pc+10;`. Here we need to recognize that this is effectively both exit and entry to global subprog, which means we stay in caller's frame. So we carry on with r6 still in precision set, until we satisfy it at insn #9. The only hard part with global subprogs is just knowing when it's a global func. Lastly, callback-calling helpers and kfuncs do simulate subprog calls, so jump history will have subprog instructions in between caller program's instructions, but the rules of propagating r0 and r1-r5 differ, because we don't actually directly call callback. We actually call helper/kfunc, which at runtime will call subprog, so the only difference between normal helper/kfunc handling is that we need to make sure to skip callback simulatinog part of jump history. Let's look at an example to make this clearer. frame 0 frame 1 precision set ======= ======= ============= 8: r6 = 456; 9: r1 = 123; fr0: r6 10: r2 = &callback; fr0: r6 11: call bpf_loop; fr0: r6 22: r0 = r1; fr0: r6 fr1: 23: exit fr0: r6 fr1: 12: r1 = <map_pointer> fr0: r0, r6 13: r1 += r0; fr0: r0, r6 14: r1 += r6; fr0: r6; 15: exit Again, insn #13 forces r0 to be precise. As soon as we get to `23: exit` we see that this isn't actually a static subprog call (it's `call bpf_loop;` helper call instead). So we clear r0 from precision set. For callee-saved register, there is no difference: it stays in frame 0's precision set, we go through insn #22 and #23, ignoring them until we get back to caller frame 0, eventually satisfying precision backtrack logic at insn #8 (`r6 = 456;`). Assuming callback needed to set r0 as precise at insn #23, we'd backtrack to insn #22, switching from r0 to r1, and then at the point when we pop back to frame 0 at insn #11, we'll clear r1-r5 from precision set, as we don't really do a subprog call directly, so there is no input argument precision propagation. That's pretty much it. With these changes, it seems like the only still unsupported situation for precision backpropagation is the case when program is accessing stack through registers other than r10. This is still left as unsupported (though rare) case for now. As for results. For selftests, few positive changes for bigger programs, cls_redirect in dynptr variant benefitting the most: [vmuser@archvm bpf]$ ./veristat -C ~/subprog-precise-before-results.csv ~/subprog-precise-after-results.csv -f @veristat.cfg -e file,prog,insns -f 'insns_diff!=0' File Program Insns (A) Insns (B) Insns (DIFF) ---------------------------------------- ------------- --------- --------- ---------------- pyperf600_bpf_loop.bpf.linked1.o on_event 2060 2002 -58 (-2.82%) test_cls_redirect_dynptr.bpf.linked1.o cls_redirect 15660 2914 -12746 (-81.39%) test_cls_redirect_subprogs.bpf.linked1.o cls_redirect 61620 59088 -2532 (-4.11%) xdp_synproxy_kern.bpf.linked1.o syncookie_tc 109980 86278 -23702 (-21.55%) xdp_synproxy_kern.bpf.linked1.o syncookie_xdp 97716 85147 -12569 (-12.86%) Cilium progress don't really regress. They don't use subprogs and are mostly unaffected, but some other fixes and improvements could have changed something. This doesn't appear to be the case: [vmuser@archvm bpf]$ ./veristat -C ~/subprog-precise-before-results-cilium.csv ~/subprog-precise-after-results-cilium.csv -e file,prog,insns -f 'insns_diff!=0' File Program Insns (A) Insns (B) Insns (DIFF) ------------- ------------------------------ --------- --------- ------------ bpf_host.o tail_nodeport_nat_ingress_ipv6 4983 5003 +20 (+0.40%) bpf_lxc.o tail_nodeport_nat_ingress_ipv6 4983 5003 +20 (+0.40%) bpf_overlay.o tail_nodeport_nat_ingress_ipv6 4983 5003 +20 (+0.40%) bpf_xdp.o tail_handle_nat_fwd_ipv6 12475 12504 +29 (+0.23%) bpf_xdp.o tail_nodeport_nat_ingress_ipv6 6363 6371 +8 (+0.13%) Looking at (somewhat anonymized) Meta production programs, we see mostly insignificant variation in number of instructions, with one program (syar_bind6_protect6) benefitting the most at -17%. [vmuser@archvm bpf]$ ./veristat -C ~/subprog-precise-before-results-fbcode.csv ~/subprog-precise-after-results-fbcode.csv -e prog,insns -f 'insns_diff!=0' Program Insns (A) Insns (B) Insns (DIFF) ------------------------ --------- --------- ---------------- on_request_context_event 597 585 -12 (-2.01%) read_async_py_stack 43789 43657 -132 (-0.30%) read_sync_py_stack 35041 37599 +2558 (+7.30%) rrm_usdt 946 940 -6 (-0.63%) sysarmor_inet6_bind 28863 28249 -614 (-2.13%) sysarmor_inet_bind 28845 28240 -605 (-2.10%) syar_bind4_protect4 154145 147640 -6505 (-4.22%) syar_bind6_protect6 165242 137088 -28154 (-17.04%) syar_task_exit_setgid 21289 19720 -1569 (-7.37%) syar_task_exit_setuid 21290 19721 -1569 (-7.37%) do_uprobe 19967 19413 -554 (-2.77%) tw_twfw_ingress 215877 204833 -11044 (-5.12%) tw_twfw_tc_in 215877 204833 -11044 (-5.12%) But checking duration (wall clock) differences, that is the actual time taken by verifier to validate programs, we see a sometimes dramatic improvements, all the way to about 16x improvements: [vmuser@archvm bpf]$ ./veristat -C ~/subprog-precise-before-results-meta.csv ~/subprog-precise-after-results-meta.csv -e prog,duration -s duration_diff^ | head -n20 Program Duration (us) (A) Duration (us) (B) Duration (us) (DIFF) ---------------------------------------- ----------------- ----------------- -------------------- tw_twfw_ingress 4488374 272836 -4215538 (-93.92%) tw_twfw_tc_in 4339111 268175 -4070936 (-93.82%) tw_twfw_egress 3521816 270751 -3251065 (-92.31%) tw_twfw_tc_eg 3472878 284294 -3188584 (-91.81%) balancer_ingress 343119 291391 -51728 (-15.08%) syar_bind6_protect6 78992 64782 -14210 (-17.99%) ttls_tc_ingress 11739 8176 -3563 (-30.35%) kprobe__security_inode_link 13864 11341 -2523 (-18.20%) read_sync_py_stack 21927 19442 -2485 (-11.33%) read_async_py_stack 30444 28136 -2308 (-7.58%) syar_task_exit_setuid 10256 8440 -1816 (-17.71%) Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230505043317.3629845-9-andrii@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> |
Completed in 827 milliseconds