Christophe Leroy wrote:
test_bpf tail call tests end up as:
test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 85 PASS
test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 111 PASS
test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 145 PASS
test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 170 PASS
test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 190 PASS
test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1
BUG: Unable to handle kernel data access on write at 0xf1b4e000
Faulting instruction address: 0xbe86b710
Oops: Kernel access of bad area, sig: 11 [#1]
BE PAGE_SIZE=4K MMU=Hash PowerMac
Modules linked in: test_bpf(+)
CPU: 0 PID: 97 Comm: insmod Not tainted 6.1.0-rc4+ #195
Hardware name: PowerMac3,1 750CL 0x87210 PowerMac
NIP: be86b710 LR: be857e88 CTR: be86b704
REGS: f1b4df20 TRAP: 0300 Not tainted (6.1.0-rc4+)
MSR: 00009032 <EE,ME,IR,DR,RI> CR: 28008242 XER: 00000000
DAR: f1b4e000 DSISR: 42000000
GPR00: 00000001 f1b4dfe0 c11d2280 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000002 00000000
GPR08: f1b4e000 be86b704 f1b4e000 00000000 00000000 100d816a f2440000 fe73baa8
GPR16: f2458000 00000000 c1941ae4 f1fe2248 00000045 c0de0000 f2458030 00000000
GPR24: 000003e8 0000000f f2458000 f1b4dc90 3e584b46 00000000 f24466a0 c1941a00
NIP [be86b710] 0xbe86b710
LR [be857e88] __run_one+0xec/0x264 [test_bpf]
Call Trace:
[f1b4dfe0] [00000002] 0x2 (unreliable)
Instruction dump:
XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX
---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
This is a tentative to write above the stack. The problem is encoutered
with tests added by commit 38608ee7b690 ("bpf, tests: Add load store
test case for tail call")
This happens because tail call is done to a BPF prog with a different
stack_depth. At the time being, the stack is kept as is when the caller
tail calls its callee. But at exit, the callee restores the stack based
on its own properties. Therefore here, at each run, r1 is erroneously
increased by 32 - 16 = 16 bytes.
This was done that way in order to pass the tail call count from caller
to callee through the stack. As powerpc32 doesn't have a red zone in
the stack, it was necessary the maintain the stack as is for the tail
call. But it was not anticipated that the BPF frame size could be
different.
Let's take a new approach. Use register r4 to carry the tail call count
during the tail call, and save it into the stack at function entry if
required. This means the input parameter must be in r3, which is more
correct as it is a 32 bits parameter, then tail call better match with
normal BPF function entry, the down side being that we move that input
parameter back and forth between r3 and r4. That can be optimised later.
Doing that also has the advantage of maximising the common parts between
tail calls and a normal function exit.
With the fix, tail call tests are now successfull:
test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 53 PASS
test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 115 PASS
test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 154 PASS
test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 165 PASS
test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 101 PASS
test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 141 PASS
test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 994 PASS
test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 140975 PASS
test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 110 PASS
test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 69 PASS
test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed]
Suggested-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Fixes: 51c66ad849a7 ("powerpc/bpf: Implement extended BPF on PPC32")
Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@xxxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thanks,
Naveen
