On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 1:46 PM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 9/8/21 12:53 PM, Johan Almbladh wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 12:10 PM Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2021-09-08 at 00:23 +0200, Johan Almbladh wrote:
> >>> This patch adds a tail call limit test where the program also emits
> >>> a BPF_CALL to an external function prior to the tail call. Mainly
> >>> testing that JITed programs preserve its internal register state, for
> >>> example tail call count, across such external calls.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Johan Almbladh <johan.almbladh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> lib/test_bpf.c | 51 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> >>> 1 file changed, 48 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/lib/test_bpf.c b/lib/test_bpf.c
> >>> index 7475abfd2186..6e45b4da9841 100644
> >>> --- a/lib/test_bpf.c
> >>> +++ b/lib/test_bpf.c
> >>> @@ -12259,6 +12259,20 @@ static struct tail_call_test tail_call_tests[]
> >>> = {
> >>> },
> >>> .result = MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT + 1,
> >>> },
> >>> + {
> >>> + "Tail call count preserved across function calls",
> >>> + .insns = {
> >>> + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, R1, 1),
> >>> + BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, R10, R1, -8),
> >>> + BPF_CALL_REL(0),
> >>> + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, R1, R10, -8),
> >>> + BPF_ALU32_REG(BPF_MOV, R0, R1),
> >>> + TAIL_CALL(0),
> >>> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> >>> + },
> >>> + .stack_depth = 8,
> >>> + .result = MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT + 1,
> >>> + },
> >>> {
> >>> "Tail call error path, NULL target",
> >>> .insns = {
> >>
> >> There seems to be a problem with BPF_CALL_REL(0) on s390, since it
> >> assumes that test_bpf_func and __bpf_call_base are within +-2G of
> >> each other, which is not (yet) the case.
> >
> > The idea with this test is to mess up a JITed program's internal state
> > if it does not properly save/restore those regs. I would like to keep
> > the test in some form, but I do see the problem here.
> >
> > Another option could perhaps be to skip this test at runtime if the
> > computed offset is outside +-2G. If the offset is greater than that it
> > does not fit into the 32-bit BPF immediate field, and must therefore
> > be skipped. This would work for other archs too.
>
> Sounds reasonable as a work-around/to move forward.
I'll do this and prepare a v3 then.
>
> > Yet another solution would be call one or several bpf helpers instead.
> > As I understand it, they should always be located within this range,
> > otherwise they would not be callable from a BPF program. The reason I
> > did not do this was because I found helpers that don't require any
> > context to be too simple. Ideally one would want to call something
> > that uses pretty much all available caller-saved CPU registers. I
> > figured snprintf would be complex/nasty enough for this purpose.
>
> Potentially bpf_csum_diff() could also be a candidate, and fairly
> straight forward to set up from raw asm.
Thanks, I will take a look at it.
>
> >> I can't think of a good fix, so how about something like this?
> >>
> >> --- a/lib/test_bpf.c
> >> +++ b/lib/test_bpf.c
> >> @@ -12257,6 +12257,7 @@ static struct tail_call_test tail_call_tests[]
> >> = {
> >> },
> >> .result = MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT + 1,
> >> },
> >> +#ifndef __s390__
> >> {
> >> "Tail call count preserved across function calls",
> >> .insns = {
> >> @@ -12271,6 +12272,7 @@ static struct tail_call_test tail_call_tests[]
> >> = {
> >> .stack_depth = 8,
> >> .result = MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT + 1,
> >> },
> >> +#endif
> >> {
> >> "Tail call error path, NULL target",
> >> .insns = {
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
>
