From ebf7f6f0a6cdcc17a3da52b81e4b3a98c4005028 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tiezhu Yang Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2021 09:30:00 +0800 Subject: bpf: Change value of MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT from 32 to 33 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 and thus confusing at 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 Although the above failed testcase has been fixed in commit 18935a72eb25 ("bpf/tests: Fix error in tail call limit tests"), it would still be good to change the value of MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT from 32 to 33 to make the code more readable. The 32-bit x86 JIT was using a limit of 32, just fix the wrong comments and limit to 33 tail calls as the constant MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT updated. For the mips64 JIT, use "ori" instead of "addiu" as suggested by Johan Almbladh. For the riscv JIT, use RV_REG_TCC directly to save one register move as suggested by Björn Töpel. For the other implementations, no function changes, it does not change the current limit 33, the new value of MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT can reflect the actual max tail call count, the related tail call testcases in test_bpf module and selftests can work well for the interpreter and the JIT. Here are the test results on x86_64: # uname -m x86_64 # echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable # modprobe test_bpf test_suite=test_tail_calls # dmesg | tail -1 test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 8 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [0/8 JIT'ed] # rmmod test_bpf # echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable # modprobe test_bpf test_suite=test_tail_calls # dmesg | tail -1 test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 8 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [8/8 JIT'ed] # rmmod test_bpf # ./test_progs -t tailcalls #142 tailcalls:OK Summary: 1/11 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Tested-by: Johan Almbladh Tested-by: Ilya Leoshkevich Acked-by: Björn Töpel Acked-by: Johan Almbladh Acked-by: Ilya Leoshkevich Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/1636075800-3264-1-git-send-email-yangtiezhu@loongson.cn --- arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) (limited to 'arch/arm64') diff --git a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c index 86c9dc0681cc..07c12c42b751 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c +++ b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c @@ -287,13 +287,14 @@ 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) + /* + * if (tail_call_cnt >= MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT) * goto out; * tail_call_cnt++; */ 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_B_(A64_COND_CS, jmp_offset), ctx); emit(A64_ADD_I(1, tcc, tcc, 1), ctx); /* prog = array->ptrs[index]; -- cgit v1.2.3