On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 05:22 PM +02, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 6/16/22 5:00 PM, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 01:02:52PM +0200, Jakub Sitnicki wrote:
>>> While working aarch64 JIT to allow mixing bpf2bpf calls with tailcalls, I
>>> noticed unexpected tailcall behavior in x86 JIT.
>>>
>>> I don't know if it is by design or a bug. The bpf_tail_call helper
>>> documentation says that the user should not expect the control flow to
>>> return to the previous program, if the tail call was successful:
>>>
>>>> If the call succeeds, the kernel immediately runs the first
>>>> instruction of the new program. This is not a function call,
>>>> and it never returns to the previous program.
>>>
>>> However, when a tailcall happens from a subprogram, that is after a bpf2bpf
>>> call, that is not the case. We return to the caller program because the
>>> stack destruction is too shallow. BPF stack of just the top-most BPF
>>> function gets destroyed.
>>>
>>> This in turn allows the return value of the tailcall'ed program to get
>>> overwritten, as the test below test demonstrates. It currently fails on
>>> x86:
>> Disclaimer: some time has passed by since I looked into this :P
>> To me the bug would be if test would have returned 1 in your case. If I
>> recall correctly that was the design choice, so tailcalls when mixed with
>> bpf2bpf will consume current stack frame. When tailcall happens from
>> subprogram then we would return to the caller of this subprog. We added
>> logic to verifier that checks if this (tc + bpf2bpf) mix wouldn't cause
>> stack overflow. We even limit the stack frame size to 256 in such case.
>
> Yes, that is the desired behavior, so return 2 from your example below looks
> correct / expected:
>
> +SEC("tc")
> +int classifier_0(struct __sk_buff *skb __unused)
> +{
> + done = 1;
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static __noinline
> +int subprog_tail(struct __sk_buff *skb)
> +{
> + bpf_tail_call_static(skb, &jmp_table, 0);
> + return 1;
> +}
> +
> +SEC("tc")
> +int entry(struct __sk_buff *skb)
> +{
> + subprog_tail(skb);
> + return 2;
> +}
Great. Thanks for confirming.
Since I have the test ready, I might as well submit it.
I think the case of ignoring the tailcall result is not covered yet.
Also, this makes changes needed to support bpf2bpf+tailcalls on arm64
simpler. Will post soon.
>
>> Cilium docs explain this:
>> https://docs.cilium.io/en/latest/bpf/#bpf-to-bpf-calls
