On 9/11/21 3:56 AM, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
In the current code, the actual max tail call count is 33 which is greater
than MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT (defined as 32), the actual limit is not consistent
with the meaning of MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT, there is some confusion and need to
spend some time to think about the reason at the first glance.
We can see the historical evolution from commit 04fd61ab36ec ("bpf: allow
bpf programs to tail-call other bpf programs") and commit f9dabe016b63
("bpf: Undo off-by-one in interpreter tail call count limit").
In order to avoid changing existing behavior, the actual limit is 33 now,
this is reasonable.
After commit 874be05f525e ("bpf, tests: Add tail call test suite"), we can
see there exists failed testcase.
On all archs when CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON is not set:
# echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable
# modprobe test_bpf
# dmesg | grep -w FAIL
Tail call error path, max count reached jited:0 ret 34 != 33 FAIL
On some archs:
# echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable
# modprobe test_bpf
# dmesg | grep -w FAIL
Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 ret 34 != 33 FAIL
So it is necessary to change the value of MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT from 32 to 33,
then do some small changes of the related code.
With this patch, it does not change the current limit 33, MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT
can reflect the actual max tail call count, the tailcall selftests can work
well, and also the above failed testcase in test_bpf can be fixed for the
interpreter (all archs) and the JIT (all archs except for x86).
# uname -m
x86_64
# echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable
# modprobe test_bpf
# dmesg | grep -w FAIL
Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 ret 33 != 34 FAIL
Could you also state in here which archs you have tested with this change? I
presume /every/ arch which has a JIT?
Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
v2:
-- fix the typos in the commit message and update the commit message.
-- fix the failed tailcall selftests for x86 jit.
I am not quite sure the change on x86 is proper, with this change,
tailcall selftests passed, but tailcall limit test in test_bpf.ko
failed, I do not know the reason now, I think this is another issue,
maybe someone more versed in x86 jit could take a look.
There should be a series from Johan coming today with regards to test_bpf.ko
that will fix the "tail call error path, max count reached" test which had an
assumption in that R0 would always be valid for the fall-through and could be
passed to the bpf_exit insn whereas it is not guaranteed and verifier, for
example, forbids a subsequent access to R0 w/o reinit. For your testing, I
would suggested to recheck once this series is out.
arch/arm/net/bpf_jit_32.c | 11 ++++++-----
arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 7 ++++---
arch/mips/net/ebpf_jit.c | 4 ++--
arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c | 4 ++--
arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c | 12 ++++++------
arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c | 4 ++--
arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c | 4 ++--
arch/sparc/net/bpf_jit_comp_64.c | 8 ++++----
arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 10 +++++-----
include/linux/bpf.h | 2 +-
kernel/bpf/core.c | 4 ++--
11 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
[...]
/* prog = array->ptrs[index]
diff --git a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
index 41c23f4..5d6c843 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
@@ -286,14 +286,15 @@ static int emit_bpf_tail_call(struct jit_ctx *ctx)
emit(A64_CMP(0, r3, tmp), ctx);
emit(A64_B_(A64_COND_CS, jmp_offset), ctx);
- /* if (tail_call_cnt > MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT)
- * goto out;
+ /*
* tail_call_cnt++;
+ * if (tail_call_cnt > MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT)
+ * goto out;
*/
+ emit(A64_ADD_I(1, tcc, tcc, 1), ctx);
emit_a64_mov_i64(tmp, MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT, ctx);
emit(A64_CMP(1, tcc, tmp), ctx);
emit(A64_B_(A64_COND_HI, jmp_offset), ctx);
- emit(A64_ADD_I(1, tcc, tcc, 1), ctx);
/* prog = array->ptrs[index];
* if (prog == NULL)
[...]
diff --git a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
index 0fe6aac..74a9e61 100644
--- a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
+++ b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
@@ -402,7 +402,7 @@ static int get_pop_bytes(bool *callee_regs_used)
* ... bpf_tail_call(void *ctx, struct bpf_array *array, u64 index) ...
* if (index >= array->map.max_entries)
* goto out;
- * if (++tail_call_cnt > MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT)
+ * if (tail_call_cnt++ == MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT)
Why such inconsistency to e.g. above with arm64 case but also compared to
x86 32 bit which uses JAE? If so, we should cleanly follow the reference
implementation (== interpreter) _everywhere_ and _not_ introduce additional
variants/implementations across JITs.
* goto out;
* prog = array->ptrs[index];
* if (prog == NULL)
@@ -452,13 +452,13 @@ static void emit_bpf_tail_call_indirect(u8 **pprog, bool *callee_regs_used,
EMIT2(X86_JBE, OFFSET1); /* jbe out */
/*
- * if (tail_call_cnt > MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT)
+ * if (tail_call_cnt++ == MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT)
* goto out;
*/
EMIT2_off32(0x8B, 0x85, tcc_off); /* mov eax, dword ptr [rbp - tcc_off] */
EMIT3(0x83, 0xF8, MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT); /* cmp eax, MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT */
#define OFFSET2 (off2 + RETPOLINE_RCX_BPF_JIT_SIZE)
- EMIT2(X86_JA, OFFSET2); /* ja out */
+ EMIT2(X86_JE, OFFSET2); /* je out */
EMIT3(0x83, 0xC0, 0x01); /* add eax, 1 */
EMIT2_off32(0x89, 0x85, tcc_off); /* mov dword ptr [rbp - tcc_off], eax */
@@ -530,12 +530,12 @@ static void emit_bpf_tail_call_direct(struct bpf_jit_poke_descriptor *poke,
}
/*
- * if (tail_call_cnt > MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT)
+ * if (tail_call_cnt++ == MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT)
* goto out;
*/
EMIT2_off32(0x8B, 0x85, tcc_off); /* mov eax, dword ptr [rbp - tcc_off] */
EMIT3(0x83, 0xF8, MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT); /* cmp eax, MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT */
- EMIT2(X86_JA, off1); /* ja out */
+ EMIT2(X86_JE, off1); /* je out */
EMIT3(0x83, 0xC0, 0x01); /* add eax, 1 */
EMIT2_off32(0x89, 0x85, tcc_off); /* mov dword ptr [rbp - tcc_off], eax */
diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
index f4c16f1..224cc7e 100644
--- a/include/linux/bpf.h
+++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
@@ -1046,7 +1046,7 @@ struct bpf_array {
};
#define BPF_COMPLEXITY_LIMIT_INSNS 1000000 /* yes. 1M insns */
-#define MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT 32
+#define MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT 33
#define BPF_F_ACCESS_MASK (BPF_F_RDONLY | \
BPF_F_RDONLY_PROG | \
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c
index 9f4636d..8edb1c3 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/core.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c
@@ -1564,10 +1564,10 @@ static u64 ___bpf_prog_run(u64 *regs, const struct bpf_insn *insn)
if (unlikely(index >= array->map.max_entries))
goto out;
- if (unlikely(tail_call_cnt > MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT))
- goto out;
tail_call_cnt++;
+ if (unlikely(tail_call_cnt > MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT))
+ goto out;
prog = READ_ONCE(array->ptrs[index]);
if (!prog)
