Re: [Bpf] [PATCH] bpf, docs: Add additional ABI working draft base text

[Will Hawkins <[e-mail]>]

Thank you, David and Christoph, for the comments. I am sending a v2 of
the patch and will respond to open questions inline below.

On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 2:26 PM David Vernet <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 10:19:55AM -0400, Will Hawkins wrote:
>
> Hi Will,
>
> Thanks for working on this. This is really great work and (obviously) a
> big improvement over my tiny little ABI doc. I left some comments below,
> as is to be expected given that it's only the first draft.
>
> > Per David's description of the IETF standardization process, this
> > document will form the basis for an informational eBPF ABI. The
> > work in this commit is a slightly more complete skeleton for the work
> > that we will do. Everything in this document (from formatting to topics
> > to details) is open for change and feedback.
> > ---
> >  Documentation/bpf/standardization/abi.rst | 237 ++++++++++++++++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 225 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/standardization/abi.rst b/Documentation/bpf/standardization/abi.rst
> > index 0c2e10eeb89a..cadbd1b4d6b3 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/bpf/standardization/abi.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/bpf/standardization/abi.rst
> > @@ -1,25 +1,238 @@
> > -.. contents::
> > -.. sectnum::
> > -
> >  ===================================================
> >  BPF ABI Recommended Conventions and Guidelines v1.0
> >  ===================================================
> >
> > -This is version 1.0 of an informational document containing recommended
> > -conventions and guidelines for producing portable BPF program binaries.
> > +An application binary interface (ABI) defines the requirements that one or more binary software
> > +objects must meet in order to guarantee that they can interoperate and/or use the resources provided
> > +by operating systems/hardware combinations.  (For alternate definitions of ABI, see
> > +[SYSVABI]_, [POWERPCABI]_)
> > +
> > +The purpose of this document is to define an ABI which will define the extent to which compiled
> > +eBPF programs are compatible with each other and the eBPF machine/processor [#]_ on which they
>
> s/eBPF/BPF throughout the doc

All done!

>
> > +are executing.
> > +
> > +The ABI is specified in two parts: a generic part and a processor-specific part.
> > +A pairing of of generic ABI with the processor-specific ABI for a certain instantiation
>
> s/of of/of

Good eyes, thank you!

>
> > +of an eBPF machine represents a complete binary interface for eBPF programs executing
> > +on that machine.
> > +
> > +This document is a generic ABI and specifies the parameters and behavior common to all
>
> Should this say, "This document is the generic ABI..." to reflect the
> fact that it's the first of the two ABI parts mentioned in the prior
> paragraph?

Absolutely. Great suggestion.

>
> > +instantiations of eBPF machines. In addition, it defines the details that must be specified by each
> > +processor-specific ABI.
> > +
> > +These psABIs are the second part of the ABI. Each instantiation of an eBPF machine must
> > +describe the mechanism through which binary interface compatibility is maintained with
> > +respect to the issues highlighted by this document. However, the details that must be
> > +defined by a psABI are a minimum -- a psABI may specify additional requirements for binary
> > +interface compatibility on a platform.
> > +
> > +.. contents::
> > +.. sectnum::
> > +
> > +How To Use This ABI
> > +===================
> > +
> > +Conformance
> > +===========
> > +
> > +Note: Red Hat specifies different levels of conformance over time [RHELABI]_.
>
> I don't think we should specify conformance guidelines for a
> distribution as part of the standardization document. RHEL, Debian,
> future distros, Windows, etc, can all decide what guidelines they give
> developers for backward compatibility, etc with their release cycles,
> but that's entirely separate from a standardization document that's
> enumerating generic or psABIs.

I agree 100%. The "Note:" here was more an author's "note to self"
about where we could look for other existing language that we could
appropriate to include in this document. I have updated the Note: to
be an Author's Note (here and elsewhere) to make that more obvious. I
hope that is okay!

>
> > +
> > +Related Work
> > +============
> > +eBPF programs are not unique for the way that they operate on a virtualized machine and processor.
> > +There are many programming languages that compile to an ISA that is specific to a virtual machine.
> > +Like the specification presented herein, those languages and virtual machines also have ABIs.
> > +
> > +For example, the Go programming language and the runtime included statically with each program compiled
> > +from Go source code have a defined ABI [GOABI]_. Java programs compiled to bytecode follow a well-defined
> > +ABI for interoperability with other compiled Java programs and libraries [JAVAABI]_. Programs compiled to
> > +bytecode for execution as user applications on the Android operating system (OS) adhere to a bytecode
> > +specification that shares much in common with an ABI [DALVIKABI]_. Finally, the Common Language Runtime (CLR)
> > +designed to execute programs compiled to the Microsoft Intermediate Language (MSIL) has a fully specified
> > +ABI [CLRABI]_.
>
> While this section is certainly useful background for the reader, I'm
> also not sure it's necessary or appropriate to include. These ABIs are
> independent of this one, and could change at any time. It's probably
> best if we avoid referencing external documents that aren't actual
> dependencies of this document. Feel free to disagree.

You make an excellent point. Although v2 does not make this change, do
you think that a reasonable adjustment would be to simply move this
section to the end of the document?

>
> > +Vocabulary
> > +==========
> > +
> > +#. Program: An eBPF Program is a self-contained set of eBPF instructions that execute
> > +   on an eBPF processor.
>
> I wonder if we want to be a bit more concrete here. "Self-contained",
> for example, is arguably a bit ambiguous in terms of what it means. What
> do you think about this?
>
> "Program: A BPF Program is an ordered set of BPF instructions, with
> exactly one entry instruction where the program begins, and one or more
> BPF_EXIT instructions where program execution can end."

This suggestion is fantastic and I have used it verbatim!

>
> > +#. Program Type: Every eBPF program has an associated type. The program type defines, among other things,
> > +   a program's possible attach types.
> > +#. Attach Type: An attach type defines the set of BPF hook points to which an eBPF
> > +   program can attach.
> > +#. BPF Hook Points: Places in a BPF-enabled component (e.g., the Linux Kernel, the Windows kernel) where
> > +   an eBPF program may be attached.
>
> Hmm, I'm not sure if having this vocabulary section at the beginning of
> the document is optimal. Consider that the above 3 definitions are quite
> sparse, and essentially do nothing other than reference each other, and
> they're also leaving out a lot of detail that will be explored more
> substantively later in the document (or in the framework / architecture
> informational document described in [0]).
>
> [0]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/bpf/about/
>
> It seems like it might make more sense to follow the approach taken by
> the JVM specification [1], SysV ABI [2], and RISC-V psABI [3] (though
> they do have a section that defines appreviations and a couple of
> terms), and instead just have each chapter explain all of these concepts
> in more detail without any kind of introduction. What do you think?

I could go either way. Personally, when I read documents, I like
having a vocabulary section to give me some bearing. That way, as I
read the document, I know where to turn to see whether words with
which I am unfamiliar are things that I "should know" (and therefore
just Google) or are new terminology from this document. Again, I could
absolutely go either way and certainly appreciate your references to
other documents that work differently. When I wrote this section I
envisioned it like the vocabulary section from the C++ standard where
new terms of art are given basic definitions that are later expanded
throughout the document.

What if we did both -- we could keep the vocabulary section and
include pointers to the places later in the specification where the
terms are explained in additional detail?

>
> [1]: https://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jvms/se21/html/index.html
> [2]: https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/elf/x86_64-abi-0.95.pdf
> [3]: https://github.com/riscv-non-isa/riscv-elf-psabi-doc/releases/download/draft-20230929-e5c800e661a53efe3c2678d71a306323b60eb13b/riscv-abi.pdf
>
> > +#. eBPF Machine Instantiation:
> > +#. ABI-conforming system: A computer system that provides the binary sys- tem interface for application
> > +   programs described in the System V ABI [SYSVABI]_.
> > +#. ABI-conforming program: A program written to include only the system routines, commands, and other
> > +   resources included in the ABI, and a program compiled into an executable file that has the formats
> > +   and characteristics specified for such files in the ABI, and a program whose behavior complies with
> > +   the rules given in the ABI [SYSVABI]_.
> > +#. ABI-nonconforming program: A program which has been written to include system routines, commands, or
> > +   other resources not included in the ABI, or a program which has been compiled into a format different
> > +   from those specified in the ABI, or a program which does not behave as specified in the ABI [SYSVABI]_.
> > +#. Undefined Behavior: Behavior that may vary from instance to instance or may change at some time in the future.
> > +   Some undesirable programming practices are marked in the ABI as yielding undefined behavior [SYSVABI]_.
> > +#. Unspecified Property: A property of an entity that is not explicitly included or referenced in this specification,
> > +   and may change at some time in the future. In general, it is not good practice to make a program depend
> > +   on an unspecified property [SYSVABI]_.
> > +
> > +Program Execution Environment
> > +=============================
> > +
> > +A loaded eBPF program is executed on an eBPF machine. That machine, physical or virtual, runs in a freestanding
> > +or hosted environment [#]_.
> > +
> > +eBPF Machine Freestanding Environment
> > +-------------------------------------
> > +
> > +
> > +eBPF Machine Hosted Environment
> > +-------------------------------
> > +
> > +A loaded eBPF program can be attached to a BPF hook point in a BPF-enabled application
> > +compatible with the attach type of its program type. When the BPF-enabled application's
> > +execution reaches a BPF hook point to which an eBPF program is attached, that program
> > +begins execution on the eBPF machine at its first instruction. The contents of eBPF machine's
> > +registers and memory at the time it starts execution are defined by the eBPF program's
> > +type and attach point.
> > +
> > +Processor Architecture
> > +======================
> > +
> > +This section describes the processor architecture available
> > +to programs. It also defines the reference language data types, giving the
> > +foundation for system interface specifications [SYSVABI]_
>
> Why are we linking to the SYSVABI doc here?

A great question -- in most places where I have referenced that
document it is akin to an academic reference -- I am attempting to
give the user the idea that the language used is not my own completely
original thought. I am attempting to tell the reader that this concept
or language has precedent in another document. I am very new to the
standards-writing process and realize that utilization of citations
may not be "how it works". Please let me know how to proceed!

>
> > +
> > +Registers
> > +---------
> > +
> > +General Purpose Registers
> > +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > +eBPF has 11 64-bit wide registers, `r0` - `r10`. The contents of the registers
> > +at the beginning of an eBPF program's execution depend on the program's type.
>
> We should probably also mention the 32 bit subregisters (they can only
> be accessed through special ALU operations), and that they zero-extend
> into 64 bit on writes.

I added a note on the subregisters. I decided to leave out the
information about how they zero extend on writes. I thought that was
something that should remain entirely within the scope of the ISA.
Please let me know if I am wrong!

>
> > +
> > +Frame Pointer Register
> > +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > +The use of a frame pointer by programs is not required. If, however, an eBPF program
> > +does use a frame pointer, it must be stored in register `r10`.
>
> Should we also specify that it should be read only?

Agreed and done!


>
> > +
> > +Data Types
> > +----------
> >
> > -Registers and calling convention
> > -================================
> > +Numeric Types
> > +^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > -BPF has 10 general purpose registers and a read-only frame pointer register,
> > -all of which are 64-bits wide.
> > +The eBPF machine supports 32- and 64-bit signed and unsigned integers. It does
> > +not support floating-point data types. All signed integers are represented in
> > +twos-complement format where the sign bit is stored in the most-significant
> > +bit.
> >
> > -The BPF calling convention is defined as:
> > +Pointers
> > +^^^^^^^^
> >
> > -* R0: return value from function calls, and exit value for BPF programs
> > +Function Calling Sequence
> > +=========================
> > +This section defines the standard function calling sequence in a way that
> > +accommodates exceptions, stack management, register (non)volatility, and access
> > +to capabilities of the hosting environment (where applicable).
> > +
> > +Functions in eBPF may define between 0 and 5 parameters. Each of the arguments in
> > +a function call are passed in registers.
> > +
> > +The eBPF calling convention is defined as:
> > +
> > +* R0: return value from function calls, and exit value for eBPF programs
> >  * R1 - R5: arguments for function calls
> >  * R6 - R9: callee saved registers that function calls will preserve
> >  * R10: read-only frame pointer to access stack
> >
> > -R0 - R5 are scratch registers and BPF programs needs to spill/fill them if
> > +R0 - R5 are scratch registers and eBPF programs needs to spill/fill them if
> >  necessary across calls.
> > +
> > +Every function invocation proceeds as if it has exclusive access to an
> > +implementation-defined amount of stack space. R10 is a pointer to the byte of
> > +memory with the highest address in that stack space. The contents
> > +of a function invocation's stack space do not persist between invocations.
> > +
> > +**TODO** Discuss manufactured prologue and epilogue. Take language from the design FAQ.
> > +
> > +Execution Environment Interface
> > +===============================
> > +
> > +When an eBPF program executes in a hosted environment, the hosted environment may make
> > +available to eBPF programs certain capabilities. This section describes those capabilities
> > +and the mechanism for accessing them.
> > +
> > +
> > +Program Execution
> > +=================
> > +
> > +Program Return Values
> > +---------------------
> > +
> > +**NOTE** libbpf currently defines the return value of an ebpf program as a 32-bit unsigned integer.
> > +
> > +Program Loading and Dynamic Linking
> > +-----------------------------------
> > +This section describes the object file information and system actions that create
> > +running programs. Some information here applies to all systems; information specific
> > +to one processor resides in sections marked accordingly [SYSVABI]_.
> > +
> > +eBPF programs saved in ELF files must be loaded from storage and properly configured before
> > +they can be executed on an eBPF machine.
> > +
> > +Program Loading (Processor-Specific)
> > +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > +
> > +Dynamic Linking
> > +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > +
> > +Global Offset Table (Processor-Specific)
> > +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > +
> > +Procedure Linkage Table (Processor-Specific)
> > +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > +
> > +Exception Handling
> > +==================
> > +
> > +eBPF Program Types
> > +==================
> > +**NOTE** This information may end up as a subsection somewhere else.
> > +
> > +eBPF Maps
> > +=========
> > +**NOTE** This information may end up as a subsection somewhere else.
> > +
> > +System Calls
> > +============
> > +
> > +**TODO**
> > +
> > +C Programming Language Support
> > +==============================
> > +
> > +**NOTE** This section could be included in order to define the contents
> > +of standardized processor-specific header files that would make it easier
> > +for programmers to write programs.
> > +
> > +Notes
> > +=====
> > +.. [#] The eBPF machine does not need to be a physical instantiation of a processor. In fact, many instantiations of eBPF machines are virtual.
> > +.. [#] See the [CSTD]_ for the inspiration for this distinction.
> > +
> > +References
> > +==========
> > +
> > +.. [SYSVABI] System V Application Binary Interface - Edition 4.1. SCO Developer Specs. The Santa Cruz Operation. 1997. https://www.sco.com/developers/devspecs/gabi41.pdf
> > +.. [POWERPCABI] Developing PowerPC Embedded Application Binary Interface (EABI) Compliant Programs. PowerPC Embedded Processors Application Note. IBM. 1998. http://class.ece.iastate.edu/arun/Cpre381_Sp06/lab/labw12a/eabi_app.pdf
> > +.. [GOABI] Go internal ABI specification. Go Source Code. No authors. 2023. https://go.googlesource.com/go/+/refs/heads/master/src/cmd/compile/abi-internal.md
> > +.. [JAVAABI] The Java (r) Language Specification - Java SE 7 Edition. Gosling, James et. al. Oracle. 2013. https://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jls/se7/html/index.html
>
> If we do share a link, it should probably be to the Java Virtual Machine
> specification rather than the language specification. I believe the most
> recent edition is 21.

I checked and the binary compatibility piece of the specification is
actually in the language spec. That said, it might make sense to just
link to both? I am willing to do whatever you suggest!

>
> > +.. [DALVIKABI] Dalvik Bytecode. Android Core Runtime Documentation. No authors. Google. 2022. https://source.android.com/docs/core/runtime/dalvik-bytecode
> > +.. [CLRABI] CLR ABI. The Book of the Runtime. No authors. Microsoft. 2023. https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/blob/master/Documentation/botr/clr-abi.md.
> > +.. [CSTD] International Standard: Programming Languages - C. ISO/IEC. 2018. https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2310.pdf.
> > +.. [RHELABI] Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8: Application Compatibility Guide. Red Hat. 2023. https://access.redhat.com/articles/rhel8-abi-compatibility
> > +
>
> Everything else looks fine for now. Something I think we should figure
> out though is what we want to put each of the following docs from the
> charter:

I reflowed the entire document to make sure that the text is at most 80 columns.



>
> - [I] one or more documents that recommend conventions and guidelines
>   for producing portable BPF program binaries,
>
> - [I] an architecture and framework document.
>
> It seems like some of what's going into this document (e.g. formally
> defining a "Program", data types, etc) could arguably belong in an
> architecture and framework document. Honestly, I think it would probably
> be easier and make more sense to just have a single monolithic BPF
> Machine informational document, though I'm not sure if that's viable at
> this point given that we specified different documents in the charter.

You make (as usual) an excellent point. I think that this question is
something that would be good to discuss as a group? Because you are
the chair, David, I will defer to you!

Thank you again David and Christoph for your comments!

Will

>
> Thanks,
> David