One of our benchmarks running in (Google-internal) CI pushes data
through the ringbuf faster htan than userspace is able to consume
it. In this case it seems we're actually able to get >INT_MAX entries
in a single ring_buffer__consume() call. ASAN detected that cnt
overflows in this case.
Fix by using 64-bit counter internally and then capping the result to
INT_MAX before converting to the int return type. Do the same for
the ring_buffer__poll().
Fixes: bf99c936f947 (libbpf: Add BPF ring buffer support)
Signed-off-by: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210429130510.1621665-1-jackmanb@google.com
This adds two atomic opcodes, both of which include the BPF_FETCH
flag. XCHG without the BPF_FETCH flag would naturally encode
atomic_set. This is not supported because it would be of limited
value to userspace (it doesn't imply any barriers). CMPXCHG without
BPF_FETCH woulud be an atomic compare-and-write. We don't have such
an operation in the kernel so it isn't provided to BPF either.
There are two significant design decisions made for the CMPXCHG
instruction:
- To solve the issue that this operation fundamentally has 3
operands, but we only have two register fields. Therefore the
operand we compare against (the kernel's API calls it 'old') is
hard-coded to be R0. x86 has similar design (and A64 doesn't
have this problem).
A potential alternative might be to encode the other operand's
register number in the immediate field.
- The kernel's atomic_cmpxchg returns the old value, while the C11
userspace APIs return a boolean indicating the comparison
result. Which should BPF do? A64 returns the old value. x86 returns
the old value in the hard-coded register (and also sets a
flag). That means return-old-value is easier to JIT, so that's
what we use.
Signed-off-by: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210114181751.768687-8-jackmanb@google.com
A subsequent patch will add additional atomic operations. These new
operations will use the same opcode field as the existing XADD, with
the immediate discriminating different operations.
In preparation, rename the instruction mode BPF_ATOMIC and start
calling the zero immediate BPF_ADD.
This is possible (doesn't break existing valid BPF progs) because the
immediate field is currently reserved MBZ and BPF_ADD is zero.
All uses are removed from the tree but the BPF_XADD definition is
kept around to avoid breaking builds for people including kernel
headers.
Signed-off-by: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210114181751.768687-5-jackmanb@google.com
Brendan Jackman