From: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev>
To: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@kernel.org>,
Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@huaweicloud.com>,
bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org,
toke@redhat.com, martin.lau@kernel.org, yonghong.song@linux.dev,
eddyz87@gmail.com, iii@linux.ibm.com, kernel-patches-bot@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/4] bpf, arm64: Fix tailcall infinite loop caused by freplace
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 22:32:34 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <007b71a8-ccaa-43f4-a24e-903d3ee9cbec@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <mb61ped5ysbso.fsf@kernel.org>
On 2024/9/5 17:13, Puranjay Mohan wrote:
> Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@huaweicloud.com> writes:
>
>> On 8/27/2024 10:23 AM, Leon Hwang wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 26/8/24 22:32, Xu Kuohai wrote:
>>>> On 8/25/2024 9:09 PM, Leon Hwang wrote:
>>>>> Like "bpf, x64: Fix tailcall infinite loop caused by freplace", the same
>>>>> issue happens on arm64, too.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>
>>>> This patch makes arm64 jited prologue even more complex. I've posted a
>>>> series [1]
>>>> to simplify the arm64 jited prologue/epilogue. I think we can fix this
>>>> issue based
>>>> on [1]. I'll give it a try.
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240826071624.350108-1-xukuohai@huaweicloud.com/
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your patch series seems great. We can fix it based on it.
>>>
>>> Please notify me if you have a successful try.
>>>
>>
>> I think the complexity arises from having to decide whether
>> to initialize or keep the tail counter value in the prologue.
>>
>> To get rid of this complexity, a straightforward idea is to
>> move the tail call counter initialization to the entry of
>> bpf world, and in the bpf world, we only increase and check
>> the tail call counter, never save/restore or set it. The
>> "entry of the bpf world" here refers to mechanisms like
>> bpf_prog_run, bpf dispatcher, or bpf trampoline that
>> allows bpf prog to be invoked from C function.
>>
>> Below is a rough POC diff for arm64 that could pass all
>> of your tests. The tail call counter is held in callee-saved
>> register x26, and is set to 0 by arch_run_bpf.
>
> I like this approach as it removes all the complexity of handling tcc in
I like this approach, too.
> different cases. Can we go ahead with this for arm64 and make
> arch_run_bpf a weak function and let other architectures override this
> if they want to use a similar approach to this and if other archs want to
> do something else they can skip implementing arch_run_bpf.
>
Hi Alexei,
What do you think about this idea?
Thanks,
Leon
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-09-06 14:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-08-25 13:09 [PATCH bpf-next 0/4] bpf: Fix tailcall infinite loop caused by freplace Leon Hwang
2024-08-25 13:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/4] bpf, x64: " Leon Hwang
2024-08-27 10:37 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-08-27 12:48 ` Leon Hwang
2024-08-27 20:50 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2024-08-28 2:36 ` Leon Hwang
2024-08-28 16:01 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2024-08-29 2:14 ` Leon Hwang
2024-09-02 10:19 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2024-09-02 16:33 ` Vincent Li
2024-08-25 13:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/4] bpf, arm64: " Leon Hwang
2024-08-26 14:32 ` Xu Kuohai
2024-08-27 2:23 ` Leon Hwang
2024-08-30 7:37 ` Xu Kuohai
2024-08-30 9:08 ` Leon Hwang
2024-08-30 10:00 ` Xu Kuohai
2024-08-30 12:11 ` Leon Hwang
2024-08-30 16:03 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2024-09-05 9:13 ` Puranjay Mohan
2024-09-06 14:32 ` Leon Hwang [this message]
2024-09-06 15:24 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2024-09-07 7:03 ` Xu Kuohai
2024-08-25 13:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next 3/4] selftests/bpf: Add testcases for another tailcall infinite loop fixing Leon Hwang
2024-08-25 13:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next 4/4] selftests/bpf: Fix verifier tailcall jit selftest Leon Hwang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=007b71a8-ccaa-43f4-a24e-903d3ee9cbec@linux.dev \
--to=leon.hwang@linux.dev \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=iii@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=kernel-patches-bot@fb.com \
--cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
--cc=puranjay@kernel.org \
--cc=toke@redhat.com \
--cc=xukuohai@huaweicloud.com \
--cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox