On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 1:52 PM Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The main motivation for private stack comes from nested
scheduler in sched-ext from Tejun. The basic idea is that
- each cgroup will its own associated bpf program,
- bpf program with parent cgroup will call bpf programs
in immediate child cgroups.
Let us say we have the following cgroup hierarchy:
root_cg (prog0):
cg1 (prog1):
cg11 (prog11):
cg111 (prog111)
cg112 (prog112)
cg12 (prog12):
cg121 (prog121)
cg122 (prog122)
cg2 (prog2):
cg21 (prog21)
cg22 (prog22)
cg23 (prog23)
In the above example, prog0 will call a kfunc which will
call prog1 and prog2 to get sched info for cg1 and cg2 and
then the information is summarized and sent back to prog0.
Similarly, prog11 and prog12 will be invoked in the kfunc
and the result will be summarized and sent back to prog1, etc.
Currently, for each thread, the x86 kernel allocate 8KB stack.
The each bpf program (including its subprograms) has maximum
512B stack size to avoid potential stack overflow.
And nested bpf programs increase the risk of stack overflow.
To avoid potential stack overflow caused by bpf programs,
this patch implemented a private stack so bpf program stack
space is allocated dynamically when the program is jited.
Such private stack is applied to tracing programs like
kprobe/uprobe, perf_event, tracepoint, raw tracepoint and
tracing.
But more than one instance of the same bpf program may
run in the system. To make things simple, percpu private
stack is allocated for each program, so if the same program
is running on different cpus concurrently, we won't have
any issue. Note that the kernel already have logic to prevent
the recursion for the same bpf program on the same cpu
(kprobe, fentry, etc.).
The patch implemented a percpu private stack based approach
for x86 arch.
- The stack size will be 0 and any stack access is from
jit-time allocated percpu storage.
- In the beginning of jit, r9 is used to save percpu
private stack pointer.
- Each rbp in the bpf asm insn is replaced by r9.
- For each call, push r9 before the call and pop r9
after the call to preserve r9 value.
Compared to previous RFC patch [1], this patch added
some conditions to enable private stack, e.g., verifier
calculated stack size, prog type, etc. The new patch
also added a performance test to compare private stack
vs. no private stack.
The following are some code example to illustrate the idea
for selftest cgroup_skb_sk_lookup:
the existing code the private-stack approach code
endbr64 endbr64
nop DWORD PTR [rax+rax*1+0x0] nop DWORD PTR [rax+rax*1+0x0]
xchg ax,ax xchg ax,ax
push rbp push rbp
mov rbp,rsp mov rbp,rsp
endbr64 endbr64
sub rsp,0x68
push rbx push rbx
... ...
... mov r9d,0x8c1c860
... add r9,QWORD PTR gs:0x21a00
... ...
mov rdx,rbp mov rdx, r9
add rdx,0xffffffffffffffb4 rdx,0xffffffffffffffb4
... ...
mov ecx,0x28 mov ecx,0x28
push r9
call 0xffffffffe305e474 call 0xffffffffe305e524
pop r9
mov rdi,rax mov rdi,rax
... ...
movzx rdi,BYTE PTR [rbp-0x46] movzx rdi,BYTE PTR [r9-0x46]
... ...
Eduard nerd-sniped me today with this a bit... :)
I have a few questions and suggestions.
So it seems like each *subprogram* (not the entire BPF program) gets
its own per-CPU private stack allocation. Is that intentional? That
seems a bit unnecessary. It also prevents any sort of actual
recursion. Not sure if it's possible to write recursive BPF subprogram
today, verifier seems to reject obvious limited recursion cases, but
still, eventually we might need/want to support that, and this will be
just another hurdle to overcome (so it's best to avoid adding it in
the first place).
I'm sure Eduard is going to try something like below and it will
probably break badly (I haven't tried, sorry):
int entry(void *ctx);
struct {
__uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_PROG_ARRAY);
__uint(max_entries, 1);
__uint(key_size, sizeof(__u32));
__array(values, int (void *));
} prog_array_init SEC(".maps") = {
.values = {
[0] = (void *)&entry,
},
};
static __noinline int subprog1(void)
{
<some state on the stack>
/* here entry will replace subprog1, and so we'll have
* entry -> entry -> entry -> ..... <tail call limit> -> subprog1
*/
bpf_tail_call(ctx, &prog_array_init, 0);
return 0;
}
SEC("raw_tp/sys_enter")
int entry(void *ctx)
{
<some state on the stack>
subprog1();
}
And we effectively have limited recursion where the entry's stack
state is clobbered, no?
So it seems like we need to support recursion.
