On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 5:14 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 5/19/15 5:11 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> bpf_tail_call() arguments:
>>> ctx - context pointer
>>> jmp_table - one of BPF_MAP_TYPE_PROG_ARRAY maps used as the jump table
>>> index - index in the jump table
>>>
>>> In this implementation x64 JIT bypasses stack unwind and jumps into the
>>> callee program after prologue, so the callee program reuses the same
>>> stack.
>>>
>>> The logic can be roughly expressed in C like:
>>>
>>> u32 tail_call_cnt;
>>>
>>> void *jumptable[2] = { &&label1, &&label2 };
>>>
>>> int bpf_prog1(void *ctx)
>>> {
>>> label1:
>>> ...
>>> }
>>>
>>> int bpf_prog2(void *ctx)
>>> {
>>> label2:
>>> ...
>>> }
>>>
>>> int bpf_prog1(void *ctx)
>>> {
>>> ...
>>> if (tail_call_cnt++ < MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT)
>>> goto *jumptable[index]; ... and pass my 'ctx' to callee ...
>>>
>>> ... fall through if no entry in jumptable ...
>>> }
>>>
>>
>> What causes the stack pointer to be right? Is there some reason that
>> the stack pointer is the same no matter where you are in the generated
>> code?
>
>
> that's why I said 'it's _roughly_ expressed in C' this way.
> Stack pointer doesn't change. It uses the same stack frame.
>
I think the more relevant point is that (I think) eBPF never changes
the stack pointer after the prologue (i.e. the stack depth is truly
constant).
--Andy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
