summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/Documentation/bpf/bpf_design_QA.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/bpf/bpf_design_QA.txt')
-rw-r--r--Documentation/bpf/bpf_design_QA.txt156
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 156 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/bpf_design_QA.txt b/Documentation/bpf/bpf_design_QA.txt
deleted file mode 100644
index f3e458a0bb2f..000000000000
--- a/Documentation/bpf/bpf_design_QA.txt
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,156 +0,0 @@
-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.