On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 6:54 AM Matteo Croce <mcroce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Maybe do a level check here?
> > Since calling it and immediately returning doesn't conserve
> > the stack.
> > If it gets called it can finish fine, but
> > calling it again would be too much.
> > In other words checking the level here gives us
> > room for one more frame.
> >
>
> I thought that the compiler was smart enough to return before
> allocating most of the frame.
> I tried and this is true only with gcc, not with clang.
Interesting. That's a surprise.
Could you share the asm that gcc generates?
> > > + err = __bpf_core_types_are_compat(local_btf, local_id,
> > > + targ_btf, targ_id,
> > > + level - 1);
> > > + if (err <= 0)
> > > + return err;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + /* tail recurse for return type check */
> > > + btf_type_skip_modifiers(local_btf, local_type->type, &local_id);
> > > + btf_type_skip_modifiers(targ_btf, targ_type->type, &targ_id);
> > > + goto recur;
> > > + }
> > > + default:
> > > + pr_warn("unexpected kind %s relocated, local [%d], target [%d]\n",
> > > + btf_type_str(local_type), local_id, targ_id);
> >
> > That should be bpf_log() instead.
> >
>
> To do that I need a struct bpf_verifier_log, which is not present
> there, neither in bpf_core_spec_match() or bpf_core_apply_relo_insn().
It is there. See:
err = bpf_core_apply_relo_insn((void *)ctx->log, insn, ...
> Should we drop the message at all?
Passing it into bpf_core_spec_match() and further into
bpf_core_types_are_compat() is probably unnecessary.
All callers have an error check with a log right after.
So I think we won't lose anything if we drop this log.
>
> > > + return 0;
> > > + }
> > > +}
> >
> > Please add tests that exercise this logic by enabling
> > additional lskels and a new test that hits the recursion limit.
> > I suspect we don't have such case in selftests.
> >
> > Thanks!
>
> Will do!
Thanks!
