Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

SIMD-0178: SBPF Static Syscalls #178

Open
wants to merge 8 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

LucasSte
Copy link

@LucasSte LucasSte commented Oct 3, 2024

No description provided.

@LucasSte LucasSte changed the title SIMD-XXXX: SBPF Static Syscalls SIMD-0178: SBPF Static Syscalls Oct 3, 2024
proposals/0176-static-syscalls.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
proposals/0176-static-syscalls.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@LucasSte LucasSte marked this pull request as ready for review October 7, 2024 13:20
buffalojoec
buffalojoec previously approved these changes Oct 21, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@buffalojoec buffalojoec left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks great to me! I think we just need to land on which SBPF version this goes into?

Copy link

@topointon-jump topointon-jump left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is awesome! Removing relocations is a big win. My only comment is the opcode change - this feels a bit unnecessary. But it is not a deal-breaker.

Comment on lines +71 to +73
The opcode `0x9D` must represent the return instruction, which supersedes the
`exit` instruction. The opcode (opcode `0x95`), previously assigned to the
`exit` instruction, must now be interpreted as the new syscall instruction.
Copy link

@topointon-jump topointon-jump Oct 31, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What is the motivation behind changing this?

Copy link

@topointon-jump topointon-jump Nov 1, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Also, changing the name from exit to return when it is the same instruction could be confusing. I have already seen this confused in other SIMDs.

Copy link

@topointon-jump topointon-jump Nov 3, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Side note - we should bundle large sets of proposed ISA changes together into the same SBPF version upgrade, so that clients don't have to support a mis-mash of ISAs based on feature flags. I believe this is the intent of #161, but just re-iterating 🙏

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Motivation is that exit was occupying the slot in the instruction class for controlflow with immediate values and it does not take an immediate value. The new syscall opcode however does, so it took its place.

## Detailed Design

The following must go into effect if and only if a program indicates the SBPF
version XX or higher in its ELF header e_flags field, according to the

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should we specify which version XX is?

Comment on lines +24 to +31
The resolution of syscalls during ELF loading requires relocating addresses,
which is a performance burden for the validator. Relocations require an entire
copy of the ELF file in memory to either relocate addresses we fetch from the
symbol table or offset addresses to after the start of the virtual machine’s
memory. Moreover, relocations pose security concerns, as they allow the
arbitrary modification of program headers and programs sections. A new
separate opcode for syscalls modifies the behavior of the ELF loader, allowing
us to resolve syscalls without relocations.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

🎉

Comment on lines +65 to +67
phase. `call imm` (opcode `0x85`) instructions must only refer to internal
calls and its immediate field must only be interpreted as a relative address
to jump from the program counter.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Does this mean there is no longer a need to hash the immediates?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It does and is the intention.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants