On 2023/10/7 00:44, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 6:43 PM Leon Hwang <hffilwlqm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/10/23 02:05, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
>>> On 10/05, Leon Hwang wrote:
>>>> From commit ebf7d1f508a73871 ("bpf, x64: rework pro/epilogue and tailcall
>>>> handling in JIT"), the tailcall on x64 works better than before.
>>>>
>>>> From commit e411901c0b775a3a ("bpf: allow for tailcalls in BPF subprograms
>>>> for x64 JIT"), tailcall is able to run in BPF subprograms on x64.
>>>>
>>>> How about:
>>>>
>>>> 1. More than 1 subprograms are called in a bpf program.
>>>> 2. The tailcalls in the subprograms call the bpf program.
>>>>
>>>> Because of missing tail_call_cnt back-propagation, a tailcall hierarchy
>>>> comes up. And MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT limit does not work for this case.
>>>>
>>>> As we know, in tail call context, the tail_call_cnt propagates by stack
>>>> and rax register between BPF subprograms. So, propagating tail_call_cnt
>>>> pointer by stack and rax register makes tail_call_cnt as like a global
>>>> variable, in order to make MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT limit works for tailcall
>>>> hierarchy cases.
>>>>
>>>> Before jumping to other bpf prog, load tail_call_cnt from the pointer
>>>> and then compare with MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT. Finally, increment
>>>> tail_call_cnt by the pointer.
>>>>
>>>> But, where does tail_call_cnt store?
>>>>
>>>> It stores on the stack of uppest-hierarchy-layer bpf prog, like
>>>>
>>>> | STACK |
>>>> +---------+ RBP
>>>> | |
>>>> | |
>>>> | |
>>>> | tcc_ptr |
>>>> | tcc |
>>>> | rbx |
>>>> +---------+ RSP
>>>>
>>>> Why not back-propagate tail_call_cnt?
>>>>
>>>> It's because it's vulnerable to back-propagate it. It's unable to work
>>>> well with the following case.
>>>>
>>>> int prog1();
>>>> int prog2();
>>>>
>>>> prog1 is tail caller, and prog2 is tail callee. If we do back-propagate
>>>> tail_call_cnt at the epilogue of prog2, can prog2 run standalone at the
>>>> same time? The answer is NO. Otherwise, there will be a register to be
>>>> polluted, which will make kernel crash.
>>>>
>>>> Can tail_call_cnt store at other place instead of the stack of bpf prog?
>>>>
>>>> I'm not able to infer a better place to store tail_call_cnt. It's not a
>>>> working inference to store it at ctx or on the stack of bpf prog's
>>>> caller.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: ebf7d1f508a7 ("bpf, x64: rework pro/epilogue and tailcall handling in JIT")
>>>> Fixes: e411901c0b77 ("bpf: allow for tailcalls in BPF subprograms for x64 JIT")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <hffilwlqm@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 120 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>>>> 1 file changed, 76 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>>>> index 8c10d9abc2394..8ad6368353c2b 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>>>> @@ -256,7 +256,7 @@ struct jit_context {
>>>> /* Number of bytes emit_patch() needs to generate instructions */
>>>> #define X86_PATCH_SIZE 5
>>>> /* Number of bytes that will be skipped on tailcall */
>>>> -#define X86_TAIL_CALL_OFFSET (11 + ENDBR_INSN_SIZE)
>>>> +#define X86_TAIL_CALL_OFFSET (24 + ENDBR_INSN_SIZE)
>>>>
>>>> static void push_r12(u8 **pprog)
>>>> {
>>>> @@ -304,6 +304,25 @@ static void pop_callee_regs(u8 **pprog, bool *callee_regs_used)
>>>> *pprog = prog;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>
>>> [..]
>>>
>>>> +static void emit_nops(u8 **pprog, int len)
>>>> +{
>>>> + u8 *prog = *pprog;
>>>> + int i, noplen;
>>>> +
>>>> + while (len > 0) {
>>>> + noplen = len;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (noplen > ASM_NOP_MAX)
>>>> + noplen = ASM_NOP_MAX;
>>>> +
>>>> + for (i = 0; i < noplen; i++)
>>>> + EMIT1(x86_nops[noplen][i]);
>>>> + len -= noplen;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + *pprog = prog;
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> From high level - makes sense to me.
>>> I'll leave a thorough review to the people who understand more :-)
>>> I see Maciej commenting on your original "Fix tailcall infinite loop"
>>> series.
>>
>> Welcome for your review.
>>
>>>
>>> One suggestion I have is: the changes to 'memcpy(prog, x86_nops[5],
>>> X86_PATCH_SIZE);' and this emit_nops move here don't seem like
>>> they actually belong to this patch. Maybe do them separately?
>>
>> Moving emit_nops here is for them:
>>
>> + /* Keep the same instruction layout. */
>> + emit_nops(&prog, 3);
>> + emit_nops(&prog, 6);
>> + emit_nops(&prog, 6);
>>
>> and do the changes to 'memcpy(prog, x86_nops[5], X86_PATCH_SIZE);' BTW.
>
> Right, I'm saying that you can do the move + replace memcpy in a
> separate (first) patch to make the patch with the actual changes a bit
> smaller.
> But that's not strictly required, up to you.
LGTM
Thanks,
Leon
