* [PATCH v6 bpf-next 1/3] bpf, x64: Fix tailcall hierarchy
2024-07-14 12:38 [PATCH v6 bpf-next 0/3] bpf: Fix tailcall hierarchy Leon Hwang
@ 2024-07-14 12:39 ` Leon Hwang
2024-07-14 12:39 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 2/3] bpf, arm64: " Leon Hwang
` (4 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Leon Hwang @ 2024-07-14 12:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bpf
Cc: ast, daniel, andrii, maciej.fijalkowski, eddyz87, puranjay, jakub,
pulehui, hffilwlqm, kernel-patches-bot
This patch fixes a tailcall issue caused by abusing the tailcall in
bpf2bpf feature.
As we know, tail_call_cnt propagates by rax from caller to callee when
to call subprog in tailcall context. But, like the following example,
MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT won't work because of missing tail_call_cnt
back-propagation from callee to caller.
\#include <linux/bpf.h>
\#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
\#include "bpf_legacy.h"
struct {
__uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_PROG_ARRAY);
__uint(max_entries, 1);
__uint(key_size, sizeof(__u32));
__uint(value_size, sizeof(__u32));
} jmp_table SEC(".maps");
int count = 0;
static __noinline
int subprog_tail1(struct __sk_buff *skb)
{
bpf_tail_call_static(skb, &jmp_table, 0);
return 0;
}
static __noinline
int subprog_tail2(struct __sk_buff *skb)
{
bpf_tail_call_static(skb, &jmp_table, 0);
return 0;
}
SEC("tc")
int entry(struct __sk_buff *skb)
{
volatile int ret = 1;
count++;
subprog_tail1(skb);
subprog_tail2(skb);
return ret;
}
char __license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
At run time, the tail_call_cnt in entry() will be propagated to
subprog_tail1() and subprog_tail2(). But, when the tail_call_cnt in
subprog_tail1() updates when bpf_tail_call_static(), the tail_call_cnt
in entry() won't be updated at the same time. As a result, in entry(),
when tail_call_cnt in entry() is less than MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT and
subprog_tail1() returns because of MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT limit,
bpf_tail_call_static() in suprog_tail2() is able to run because the
tail_call_cnt in subprog_tail2() propagated from entry() is less than
MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT.
So, how many tailcalls are there for this case if no error happens?
From top-down view, does it look like hierarchy layer and layer?
With this view, there will be 2+4+8+...+2^33 = 2^34 - 2 = 17,179,869,182
tailcalls for this case.
How about there are N subprog_tail() in entry()? There will be almost
N^34 tailcalls.
Then, in this patch, it resolves this case on x86_64.
In stead of propagating tail_call_cnt from caller to callee, it
propagates its pointer, tail_call_cnt_ptr, tcc_ptr for short.
However, where does it store tail_call_cnt?
It stores tail_call_cnt on the stack of main prog. When tail call
happens in subprog, it increments tail_call_cnt by tcc_ptr.
Meanwhile, it stores tail_call_cnt_ptr on the stack of main prog, too.
And, before jump to tail callee, it has to pop tail_call_cnt and
tail_call_cnt_ptr.
Then, at the prologue of subprog, it must not make rax as
tail_call_cnt_ptr again. It has to reuse tail_call_cnt_ptr from caller.
As a result, at run time, it has to recognize rax is tail_call_cnt or
tail_call_cnt_ptr at prologue by:
1. rax is tail_call_cnt if rax is <= MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT.
2. rax is tail_call_cnt_ptr if rax is > MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT, because a
pointer won't be <= MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT.
Here's an example to dump JITed.
struct {
__uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_PROG_ARRAY);
__uint(max_entries, 1);
__uint(key_size, sizeof(__u32));
__uint(value_size, sizeof(__u32));
} jmp_table SEC(".maps");
int count = 0;
static __noinline
int subprog_tail(struct __sk_buff *skb)
{
bpf_tail_call_static(skb, &jmp_table, 0);
return 0;
}
SEC("tc")
int entry(struct __sk_buff *skb)
{
int ret = 1;
count++;
subprog_tail(skb);
subprog_tail(skb);
return ret;
}
When bpftool p d j id 42:
int entry(struct __sk_buff * skb):
bpf_prog_0c0f4c2413ef19b1_entry:
; int entry(struct __sk_buff *skb)
0: endbr64
4: nopl (%rax,%rax)
9: xorq %rax, %rax ;; rax = 0 (tail_call_cnt)
c: pushq %rbp
d: movq %rsp, %rbp
10: endbr64
14: cmpq $33, %rax ;; if rax > 33, rax = tcc_ptr
18: ja 0x20 ;; if rax > 33 goto 0x20 ---+
1a: pushq %rax ;; [rbp - 8] = rax = 0 |
1b: movq %rsp, %rax ;; rax = rbp - 8 |
1e: jmp 0x21 ;; ---------+ |
20: pushq %rax ;; <--------|---------------+
21: pushq %rax ;; <--------+ [rbp - 16] = rax
22: pushq %rbx ;; callee saved
23: movq %rdi, %rbx ;; rbx = skb (callee saved)
; count++;
26: movabsq $-82417199407104, %rdi
30: movl (%rdi), %esi
33: addl $1, %esi
36: movl %esi, (%rdi)
; subprog_tail(skb);
39: movq %rbx, %rdi ;; rdi = skb
3c: movq -16(%rbp), %rax ;; rax = tcc_ptr
43: callq 0x80 ;; call subprog_tail()
; subprog_tail(skb);
48: movq %rbx, %rdi ;; rdi = skb
4b: movq -16(%rbp), %rax ;; rax = tcc_ptr
52: callq 0x80 ;; call subprog_tail()
; return ret;
57: movl $1, %eax
5c: popq %rbx
5d: leave
5e: retq
int subprog_tail(struct __sk_buff * skb):
bpf_prog_3a140cef239a4b4f_subprog_tail:
; int subprog_tail(struct __sk_buff *skb)
0: endbr64
4: nopl (%rax,%rax)
9: nopl (%rax) ;; do not touch tail_call_cnt
c: pushq %rbp
d: movq %rsp, %rbp
10: endbr64
14: pushq %rax ;; [rbp - 8] = rax (tcc_ptr)
15: pushq %rax ;; [rbp - 16] = rax (tcc_ptr)
16: pushq %rbx ;; callee saved
17: pushq %r13 ;; callee saved
19: movq %rdi, %rbx ;; rbx = skb
; asm volatile("r1 = %[ctx]\n\t"
1c: movabsq $-105487587488768, %r13 ;; r13 = jmp_table
26: movq %rbx, %rdi ;; 1st arg, skb
29: movq %r13, %rsi ;; 2nd arg, jmp_table
2c: xorl %edx, %edx ;; 3rd arg, index = 0
2e: movq -16(%rbp), %rax ;; rax = [rbp - 16] (tcc_ptr)
35: cmpq $33, (%rax)
39: jae 0x4e ;; if *tcc_ptr >= 33 goto 0x4e --------+
3b: jmp 0x4e ;; jmp bypass, toggled by poking |
40: addq $1, (%rax) ;; (*tcc_ptr)++ |
44: popq %r13 ;; callee saved |
46: popq %rbx ;; callee saved |
47: popq %rax ;; undo rbp-16 push |
48: popq %rax ;; undo rbp-8 push |
49: nopl (%rax,%rax) ;; tail call target, toggled by poking |
; return 0; ;; |
4e: popq %r13 ;; restore callee saved <--------------+
50: popq %rbx ;; restore callee saved
51: leave
52: retq
Furthermore, when trampoline is the caller of bpf prog, which is
tail_call_reachable, it is required to propagate rax through trampoline.
Fixes: ebf7d1f508a7 ("bpf, x64: rework pro/epilogue and tailcall handling in JIT")
Fixes: e411901c0b77 ("bpf: allow for tailcalls in BPF subprograms for x64 JIT")
Reviewed-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <hffilwlqm@gmail.com>
---
arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 107 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
1 file changed, 79 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
index d25d81c8ecc00..074b41fafbe3f 100644
--- a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
+++ b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
@@ -273,7 +273,7 @@ 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 (12 + ENDBR_INSN_SIZE)
static void push_r12(u8 **pprog)
{
@@ -403,6 +403,37 @@ static void emit_cfi(u8 **pprog, u32 hash)
*pprog = prog;
}
+static void emit_prologue_tail_call(u8 **pprog, bool is_subprog)
+{
+ u8 *prog = *pprog;
+
+ if (!is_subprog) {
+ /* cmp rax, MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT */
+ EMIT4(0x48, 0x83, 0xF8, MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT);
+ EMIT2(X86_JA, 6); /* ja 6 */
+ /* rax is tail_call_cnt if <= MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT.
+ * case1: entry of main prog.
+ * case2: tail callee of main prog.
+ */
+ EMIT1(0x50); /* push rax */
+ /* Make rax as tail_call_cnt_ptr. */
+ EMIT3(0x48, 0x89, 0xE0); /* mov rax, rsp */
+ EMIT2(0xEB, 1); /* jmp 1 */
+ /* rax is tail_call_cnt_ptr if > MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT.
+ * case: tail callee of subprog.
+ */
+ EMIT1(0x50); /* push rax */
+ /* push tail_call_cnt_ptr */
+ EMIT1(0x50); /* push rax */
+ } else { /* is_subprog */
+ /* rax is tail_call_cnt_ptr. */
+ EMIT1(0x50); /* push rax */
+ EMIT1(0x50); /* push rax */
+ }
+
+ *pprog = prog;
+}
+
/*
* Emit x86-64 prologue code for BPF program.
* bpf_tail_call helper will skip the first X86_TAIL_CALL_OFFSET bytes
@@ -424,10 +455,10 @@ static void emit_prologue(u8 **pprog, u32 stack_depth, bool ebpf_from_cbpf,
/* When it's the entry of the whole tailcall context,
* zeroing rax means initialising tail_call_cnt.
*/
- EMIT2(0x31, 0xC0); /* xor eax, eax */
+ EMIT3(0x48, 0x31, 0xC0); /* xor rax, rax */
else
/* Keep the same instruction layout. */
- EMIT2(0x66, 0x90); /* nop2 */
+ emit_nops(&prog, 3); /* nop3 */
}
/* Exception callback receives FP as third parameter */
if (is_exception_cb) {
@@ -453,7 +484,7 @@ static void emit_prologue(u8 **pprog, u32 stack_depth, bool ebpf_from_cbpf,
if (stack_depth)
EMIT3_off32(0x48, 0x81, 0xEC, round_up(stack_depth, 8));
if (tail_call_reachable)
- EMIT1(0x50); /* push rax */
+ emit_prologue_tail_call(&prog, is_subprog);
*pprog = prog;
}
@@ -589,13 +620,15 @@ static void emit_return(u8 **pprog, u8 *ip)
*pprog = prog;
}
+#define BPF_TAIL_CALL_CNT_PTR_STACK_OFF(stack) (-16 - round_up(stack, 8))
+
/*
* Generate the following code:
*
* ... 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 ((*tcc_ptr)++ >= MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT)
* goto out;
* prog = array->ptrs[index];
* if (prog == NULL)
@@ -608,7 +641,7 @@ static void emit_bpf_tail_call_indirect(struct bpf_prog *bpf_prog,
u32 stack_depth, u8 *ip,
struct jit_context *ctx)
{
- int tcc_off = -4 - round_up(stack_depth, 8);
+ int tcc_ptr_off = BPF_TAIL_CALL_CNT_PTR_STACK_OFF(stack_depth);
u8 *prog = *pprog, *start = *pprog;
int offset;
@@ -630,16 +663,14 @@ static void emit_bpf_tail_call_indirect(struct bpf_prog *bpf_prog,
EMIT2(X86_JBE, offset); /* jbe out */
/*
- * if (tail_call_cnt++ >= MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT)
+ * if ((*tcc_ptr)++ >= 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 */
+ EMIT3_off32(0x48, 0x8B, 0x85, tcc_ptr_off); /* mov rax, qword ptr [rbp - tcc_ptr_off] */
+ EMIT4(0x48, 0x83, 0x38, MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT); /* cmp qword ptr [rax], MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT */
offset = ctx->tail_call_indirect_label - (prog + 2 - start);
EMIT2(X86_JAE, offset); /* jae out */
- EMIT3(0x83, 0xC0, 0x01); /* add eax, 1 */
- EMIT2_off32(0x89, 0x85, tcc_off); /* mov dword ptr [rbp - tcc_off], eax */
/* prog = array->ptrs[index]; */
EMIT4_off32(0x48, 0x8B, 0x8C, 0xD6, /* mov rcx, [rsi + rdx * 8 + offsetof(...)] */
@@ -654,6 +685,9 @@ static void emit_bpf_tail_call_indirect(struct bpf_prog *bpf_prog,
offset = ctx->tail_call_indirect_label - (prog + 2 - start);
EMIT2(X86_JE, offset); /* je out */
+ /* Inc tail_call_cnt if the slot is populated. */
+ EMIT4(0x48, 0x83, 0x00, 0x01); /* add qword ptr [rax], 1 */
+
if (bpf_prog->aux->exception_boundary) {
pop_callee_regs(&prog, all_callee_regs_used);
pop_r12(&prog);
@@ -663,6 +697,11 @@ static void emit_bpf_tail_call_indirect(struct bpf_prog *bpf_prog,
pop_r12(&prog);
}
+ /* Pop tail_call_cnt_ptr. */
+ EMIT1(0x58); /* pop rax */
+ /* Pop tail_call_cnt, if it's main prog.
+ * Pop tail_call_cnt_ptr, if it's subprog.
+ */
EMIT1(0x58); /* pop rax */
if (stack_depth)
EMIT3_off32(0x48, 0x81, 0xC4, /* add rsp, sd */
@@ -691,21 +730,19 @@ static void emit_bpf_tail_call_direct(struct bpf_prog *bpf_prog,
bool *callee_regs_used, u32 stack_depth,
struct jit_context *ctx)
{
- int tcc_off = -4 - round_up(stack_depth, 8);
+ int tcc_ptr_off = BPF_TAIL_CALL_CNT_PTR_STACK_OFF(stack_depth);
u8 *prog = *pprog, *start = *pprog;
int offset;
/*
- * if (tail_call_cnt++ >= MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT)
+ * if ((*tcc_ptr)++ >= 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 */
+ EMIT3_off32(0x48, 0x8B, 0x85, tcc_ptr_off); /* mov rax, qword ptr [rbp - tcc_ptr_off] */
+ EMIT4(0x48, 0x83, 0x38, MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT); /* cmp qword ptr [rax], MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT */
offset = ctx->tail_call_direct_label - (prog + 2 - start);
EMIT2(X86_JAE, offset); /* jae out */
- EMIT3(0x83, 0xC0, 0x01); /* add eax, 1 */
- EMIT2_off32(0x89, 0x85, tcc_off); /* mov dword ptr [rbp - tcc_off], eax */
poke->tailcall_bypass = ip + (prog - start);
poke->adj_off = X86_TAIL_CALL_OFFSET;
@@ -715,6 +752,9 @@ static void emit_bpf_tail_call_direct(struct bpf_prog *bpf_prog,
emit_jump(&prog, (u8 *)poke->tailcall_target + X86_PATCH_SIZE,
poke->tailcall_bypass);
+ /* Inc tail_call_cnt if the slot is populated. */
+ EMIT4(0x48, 0x83, 0x00, 0x01); /* add qword ptr [rax], 1 */
+
if (bpf_prog->aux->exception_boundary) {
pop_callee_regs(&prog, all_callee_regs_used);
pop_r12(&prog);
@@ -724,6 +764,11 @@ static void emit_bpf_tail_call_direct(struct bpf_prog *bpf_prog,
pop_r12(&prog);
}
+ /* Pop tail_call_cnt_ptr. */
+ EMIT1(0x58); /* pop rax */
+ /* Pop tail_call_cnt, if it's main prog.
+ * Pop tail_call_cnt_ptr, if it's subprog.
+ */
EMIT1(0x58); /* pop rax */
if (stack_depth)
EMIT3_off32(0x48, 0x81, 0xC4, round_up(stack_depth, 8));
@@ -1311,9 +1356,11 @@ static void emit_shiftx(u8 **pprog, u32 dst_reg, u8 src_reg, bool is64, u8 op)
#define INSN_SZ_DIFF (((addrs[i] - addrs[i - 1]) - (prog - temp)))
-/* mov rax, qword ptr [rbp - rounded_stack_depth - 8] */
-#define RESTORE_TAIL_CALL_CNT(stack) \
- EMIT3_off32(0x48, 0x8B, 0x85, -round_up(stack, 8) - 8)
+#define __LOAD_TCC_PTR(off) \
+ EMIT3_off32(0x48, 0x8B, 0x85, off)
+/* mov rax, qword ptr [rbp - rounded_stack_depth - 16] */
+#define LOAD_TAIL_CALL_CNT_PTR(stack) \
+ __LOAD_TCC_PTR(BPF_TAIL_CALL_CNT_PTR_STACK_OFF(stack))
static int do_jit(struct bpf_prog *bpf_prog, int *addrs, u8 *image, u8 *rw_image,
int oldproglen, struct jit_context *ctx, bool jmp_padding)
@@ -2031,7 +2078,7 @@ st: if (is_imm8(insn->off))
func = (u8 *) __bpf_call_base + imm32;
if (tail_call_reachable) {
- RESTORE_TAIL_CALL_CNT(bpf_prog->aux->stack_depth);
+ LOAD_TAIL_CALL_CNT_PTR(bpf_prog->aux->stack_depth);
ip += 7;
}
if (!imm32)
@@ -2706,6 +2753,10 @@ static int invoke_bpf_mod_ret(const struct btf_func_model *m, u8 **pprog,
return 0;
}
+/* mov rax, qword ptr [rbp - rounded_stack_depth - 8] */
+#define LOAD_TRAMP_TAIL_CALL_CNT_PTR(stack) \
+ __LOAD_TCC_PTR(-round_up(stack, 8) - 8)
+
/* Example:
* __be16 eth_type_trans(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev);
* its 'struct btf_func_model' will be nr_args=2
@@ -2826,7 +2877,7 @@ static int __arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline(struct bpf_tramp_image *im, void *rw_im
* [ ... ]
* [ stack_arg2 ]
* RBP - arg_stack_off [ stack_arg1 ]
- * RSP [ tail_call_cnt ] BPF_TRAMP_F_TAIL_CALL_CTX
+ * RSP [ tail_call_cnt_ptr ] BPF_TRAMP_F_TAIL_CALL_CTX
*/
/* room for return value of orig_call or fentry prog */
@@ -2955,10 +3006,10 @@ static int __arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline(struct bpf_tramp_image *im, void *rw_im
save_args(m, &prog, arg_stack_off, true);
if (flags & BPF_TRAMP_F_TAIL_CALL_CTX) {
- /* Before calling the original function, restore the
- * tail_call_cnt from stack to rax.
+ /* Before calling the original function, load the
+ * tail_call_cnt_ptr from stack to rax.
*/
- RESTORE_TAIL_CALL_CNT(stack_size);
+ LOAD_TRAMP_TAIL_CALL_CNT_PTR(stack_size);
}
if (flags & BPF_TRAMP_F_ORIG_STACK) {
@@ -3017,10 +3068,10 @@ static int __arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline(struct bpf_tramp_image *im, void *rw_im
goto cleanup;
}
} else if (flags & BPF_TRAMP_F_TAIL_CALL_CTX) {
- /* Before running the original function, restore the
- * tail_call_cnt from stack to rax.
+ /* Before running the original function, load the
+ * tail_call_cnt_ptr from stack to rax.
*/
- RESTORE_TAIL_CALL_CNT(stack_size);
+ LOAD_TRAMP_TAIL_CALL_CNT_PTR(stack_size);
}
/* restore return value of orig_call or fentry prog back into RAX */
--
2.44.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* [PATCH v6 bpf-next 2/3] bpf, arm64: Fix tailcall hierarchy
2024-07-14 12:38 [PATCH v6 bpf-next 0/3] bpf: Fix tailcall hierarchy Leon Hwang
2024-07-14 12:39 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 1/3] bpf, x64: " Leon Hwang
@ 2024-07-14 12:39 ` Leon Hwang
2024-07-14 12:39 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 3/3] selftests/bpf: Add testcases for tailcall hierarchy fixing Leon Hwang
` (3 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Leon Hwang @ 2024-07-14 12:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bpf
Cc: ast, daniel, andrii, maciej.fijalkowski, eddyz87, puranjay, jakub,
pulehui, hffilwlqm, kernel-patches-bot
This patch fixes a tailcall issue caused by abusing the tailcall in
bpf2bpf feature on arm64 like the way of "bpf, x64: Fix tailcall
hierarchy".
On arm64, when a tail call happens, it uses tail_call_cnt_ptr to
increment tail_call_cnt, too.
At the prologue of main prog, it has to initialize tail_call_cnt and
prepare tail_call_cnt_ptr.
At the prologue of subprog, it pushes x26 register twice, and does not
initialize tail_call_cnt.
At the epilogue, it pops x26 twice, no matter whether it is main prog or
subprog.
Fixes: d4609a5d8c70 ("bpf, arm64: Keep tail call count across bpf2bpf calls")
Acked-by: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <hffilwlqm@gmail.com>
---
arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
index dd0bb069df4bb..59e05a7aea56a 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@
#define TMP_REG_1 (MAX_BPF_JIT_REG + 0)
#define TMP_REG_2 (MAX_BPF_JIT_REG + 1)
-#define TCALL_CNT (MAX_BPF_JIT_REG + 2)
+#define TCCNT_PTR (MAX_BPF_JIT_REG + 2)
#define TMP_REG_3 (MAX_BPF_JIT_REG + 3)
#define FP_BOTTOM (MAX_BPF_JIT_REG + 4)
#define ARENA_VM_START (MAX_BPF_JIT_REG + 5)
@@ -63,8 +63,8 @@ static const int bpf2a64[] = {
[TMP_REG_1] = A64_R(10),
[TMP_REG_2] = A64_R(11),
[TMP_REG_3] = A64_R(12),
- /* tail_call_cnt */
- [TCALL_CNT] = A64_R(26),
+ /* tail_call_cnt_ptr */
+ [TCCNT_PTR] = A64_R(26),
/* temporary register for blinding constants */
[BPF_REG_AX] = A64_R(9),
[FP_BOTTOM] = A64_R(27),
@@ -282,13 +282,35 @@ static bool is_lsi_offset(int offset, int scale)
* mov x29, sp
* stp x19, x20, [sp, #-16]!
* stp x21, x22, [sp, #-16]!
- * stp x25, x26, [sp, #-16]!
+ * stp x26, x25, [sp, #-16]!
+ * stp x26, x25, [sp, #-16]!
* stp x27, x28, [sp, #-16]!
* mov x25, sp
* mov tcc, #0
* // PROLOGUE_OFFSET
*/
+static void prepare_bpf_tail_call_cnt(struct jit_ctx *ctx)
+{
+ const struct bpf_prog *prog = ctx->prog;
+ const bool is_main_prog = !bpf_is_subprog(prog);
+ const u8 ptr = bpf2a64[TCCNT_PTR];
+ const u8 fp = bpf2a64[BPF_REG_FP];
+ const u8 tcc = ptr;
+
+ emit(A64_PUSH(ptr, fp, A64_SP), ctx);
+ if (is_main_prog) {
+ /* Initialize tail_call_cnt. */
+ emit(A64_MOVZ(1, tcc, 0, 0), ctx);
+ emit(A64_PUSH(tcc, fp, A64_SP), ctx);
+ emit(A64_MOV(1, ptr, A64_SP), ctx);
+ } else {
+ emit(A64_PUSH(ptr, fp, A64_SP), ctx);
+ emit(A64_NOP, ctx);
+ emit(A64_NOP, ctx);
+ }
+}
+
#define BTI_INSNS (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64_BTI_KERNEL) ? 1 : 0)
#define PAC_INSNS (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64_PTR_AUTH_KERNEL) ? 1 : 0)
@@ -296,7 +318,7 @@ static bool is_lsi_offset(int offset, int scale)
#define POKE_OFFSET (BTI_INSNS + 1)
/* Tail call offset to jump into */
-#define PROLOGUE_OFFSET (BTI_INSNS + 2 + PAC_INSNS + 8)
+#define PROLOGUE_OFFSET (BTI_INSNS + 2 + PAC_INSNS + 10)
static int build_prologue(struct jit_ctx *ctx, bool ebpf_from_cbpf,
bool is_exception_cb, u64 arena_vm_start)
@@ -308,7 +330,6 @@ static int build_prologue(struct jit_ctx *ctx, bool ebpf_from_cbpf,
const u8 r8 = bpf2a64[BPF_REG_8];
const u8 r9 = bpf2a64[BPF_REG_9];
const u8 fp = bpf2a64[BPF_REG_FP];
- const u8 tcc = bpf2a64[TCALL_CNT];
const u8 fpb = bpf2a64[FP_BOTTOM];
const u8 arena_vm_base = bpf2a64[ARENA_VM_START];
const int idx0 = ctx->idx;
@@ -359,7 +380,7 @@ static int build_prologue(struct jit_ctx *ctx, bool ebpf_from_cbpf,
/* Save callee-saved registers */
emit(A64_PUSH(r6, r7, A64_SP), ctx);
emit(A64_PUSH(r8, r9, A64_SP), ctx);
- emit(A64_PUSH(fp, tcc, A64_SP), ctx);
+ prepare_bpf_tail_call_cnt(ctx);
emit(A64_PUSH(fpb, A64_R(28), A64_SP), ctx);
} else {
/*
@@ -372,18 +393,15 @@ static int build_prologue(struct jit_ctx *ctx, bool ebpf_from_cbpf,
* callee-saved registers. The exception callback will not push
* anything and re-use the main program's stack.
*
- * 10 registers are on the stack
+ * 12 registers are on the stack
*/
- emit(A64_SUB_I(1, A64_SP, A64_FP, 80), ctx);
+ emit(A64_SUB_I(1, A64_SP, A64_FP, 96), ctx);
}
/* Set up BPF prog stack base register */
emit(A64_MOV(1, fp, A64_SP), ctx);
if (!ebpf_from_cbpf && is_main_prog) {
- /* Initialize tail_call_cnt */
- emit(A64_MOVZ(1, tcc, 0, 0), ctx);
-
cur_offset = ctx->idx - idx0;
if (cur_offset != PROLOGUE_OFFSET) {
pr_err_once("PROLOGUE_OFFSET = %d, expected %d!\n",
@@ -432,7 +450,8 @@ static int emit_bpf_tail_call(struct jit_ctx *ctx)
const u8 tmp = bpf2a64[TMP_REG_1];
const u8 prg = bpf2a64[TMP_REG_2];
- const u8 tcc = bpf2a64[TCALL_CNT];
+ const u8 tcc = bpf2a64[TMP_REG_3];
+ const u8 ptr = bpf2a64[TCCNT_PTR];
const int idx0 = ctx->idx;
#define cur_offset (ctx->idx - idx0)
#define jmp_offset (out_offset - (cur_offset))
@@ -449,11 +468,12 @@ static int emit_bpf_tail_call(struct jit_ctx *ctx)
emit(A64_B_(A64_COND_CS, jmp_offset), ctx);
/*
- * if (tail_call_cnt >= MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT)
+ * if ((*tail_call_cnt_ptr) >= MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT)
* goto out;
- * tail_call_cnt++;
+ * (*tail_call_cnt_ptr)++;
*/
emit_a64_mov_i64(tmp, MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT, ctx);
+ emit(A64_LDR64I(tcc, ptr, 0), ctx);
emit(A64_CMP(1, tcc, tmp), ctx);
emit(A64_B_(A64_COND_CS, jmp_offset), ctx);
emit(A64_ADD_I(1, tcc, tcc, 1), ctx);
@@ -469,6 +489,9 @@ static int emit_bpf_tail_call(struct jit_ctx *ctx)
emit(A64_LDR64(prg, tmp, prg), ctx);
emit(A64_CBZ(1, prg, jmp_offset), ctx);
+ /* Update tail_call_cnt if the slot is populated. */
+ emit(A64_STR64I(tcc, ptr, 0), ctx);
+
/* goto *(prog->bpf_func + prologue_offset); */
off = offsetof(struct bpf_prog, bpf_func);
emit_a64_mov_i64(tmp, off, ctx);
@@ -721,6 +744,7 @@ static void build_epilogue(struct jit_ctx *ctx, bool is_exception_cb)
const u8 r8 = bpf2a64[BPF_REG_8];
const u8 r9 = bpf2a64[BPF_REG_9];
const u8 fp = bpf2a64[BPF_REG_FP];
+ const u8 ptr = bpf2a64[TCCNT_PTR];
const u8 fpb = bpf2a64[FP_BOTTOM];
/* We're done with BPF stack */
@@ -738,7 +762,8 @@ static void build_epilogue(struct jit_ctx *ctx, bool is_exception_cb)
/* Restore x27 and x28 */
emit(A64_POP(fpb, A64_R(28), A64_SP), ctx);
/* Restore fs (x25) and x26 */
- emit(A64_POP(fp, A64_R(26), A64_SP), ctx);
+ emit(A64_POP(ptr, fp, A64_SP), ctx);
+ emit(A64_POP(ptr, fp, A64_SP), ctx);
/* Restore callee-saved register */
emit(A64_POP(r8, r9, A64_SP), ctx);
--
2.44.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* [PATCH v6 bpf-next 3/3] selftests/bpf: Add testcases for tailcall hierarchy fixing
2024-07-14 12:38 [PATCH v6 bpf-next 0/3] bpf: Fix tailcall hierarchy Leon Hwang
2024-07-14 12:39 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 1/3] bpf, x64: " Leon Hwang
2024-07-14 12:39 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 2/3] bpf, arm64: " Leon Hwang
@ 2024-07-14 12:39 ` Leon Hwang
2024-07-19 23:52 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 0/3] bpf: Fix tailcall hierarchy bot+bpf-ci
` (2 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Leon Hwang @ 2024-07-14 12:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bpf
Cc: ast, daniel, andrii, maciej.fijalkowski, eddyz87, puranjay, jakub,
pulehui, hffilwlqm, kernel-patches-bot
Add some test cases to confirm the tailcall hierarchy issue has been fixed.
On x64, the selftests result is:
cd tools/testing/selftests/bpf && ./test_progs -t tailcalls
327/18 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_1:OK
327/19 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_fentry:OK
327/20 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_fexit:OK
327/21 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_fentry_fexit:OK
327/22 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_fentry_entry:OK
327/23 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_2:OK
327/24 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_3:OK
327 tailcalls:OK
Summary: 1/24 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
On arm64, the selftests result is:
cd tools/testing/selftests/bpf && ./test_progs -t tailcalls
327/18 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_1:OK
327/19 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_fentry:OK
327/20 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_fexit:OK
327/21 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_fentry_fexit:OK
327/22 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_fentry_entry:OK
327/23 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_2:OK
327/24 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_3:OK
327 tailcalls:OK
Summary: 1/24 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <hffilwlqm@gmail.com>
---
.../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tailcalls.c | 320 ++++++++++++++++++
.../bpf/progs/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy1.c | 34 ++
.../bpf/progs/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy2.c | 70 ++++
.../bpf/progs/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy3.c | 62 ++++
.../progs/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_fentry.c | 35 ++
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tc_dummy.c | 12 +
6 files changed, 533 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy1.c
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy2.c
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy3.c
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_fentry.c
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tc_dummy.c
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tailcalls.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tailcalls.c
index 59993fc9c0d7e..e01fabb8cc415 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tailcalls.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tailcalls.c
@@ -3,6 +3,8 @@
#include <test_progs.h>
#include <network_helpers.h>
#include "tailcall_poke.skel.h"
+#include "tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy2.skel.h"
+#include "tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy3.skel.h"
/* test_tailcall_1 checks basic functionality by patching multiple locations
@@ -1187,6 +1189,312 @@ static void test_tailcall_poke(void)
tailcall_poke__destroy(call);
}
+static void test_tailcall_hierarchy_count(const char *which, bool test_fentry,
+ bool test_fexit,
+ bool test_fentry_entry)
+{
+ int err, map_fd, prog_fd, main_data_fd, fentry_data_fd, fexit_data_fd, i, val;
+ struct bpf_object *obj = NULL, *fentry_obj = NULL, *fexit_obj = NULL;
+ struct bpf_link *fentry_link = NULL, *fexit_link = NULL;
+ struct bpf_program *prog, *fentry_prog;
+ struct bpf_map *prog_array, *data_map;
+ int fentry_prog_fd;
+ char buff[128] = {};
+
+ LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_test_run_opts, topts,
+ .data_in = buff,
+ .data_size_in = sizeof(buff),
+ .repeat = 1,
+ );
+
+ err = bpf_prog_test_load(which, BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS, &obj,
+ &prog_fd);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "load obj"))
+ return;
+
+ prog = bpf_object__find_program_by_name(obj, "entry");
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(prog, "find entry prog"))
+ goto out;
+
+ prog_fd = bpf_program__fd(prog);
+ if (!ASSERT_GE(prog_fd, 0, "prog_fd"))
+ goto out;
+
+ if (test_fentry_entry) {
+ fentry_obj = bpf_object__open_file("tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_fentry.bpf.o",
+ NULL);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(fentry_obj, "open fentry_obj file"))
+ goto out;
+
+ fentry_prog = bpf_object__find_program_by_name(fentry_obj,
+ "fentry");
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(prog, "find fentry prog"))
+ goto out;
+
+ err = bpf_program__set_attach_target(fentry_prog, prog_fd,
+ "entry");
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "set_attach_target entry"))
+ goto out;
+
+ err = bpf_object__load(fentry_obj);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "load fentry_obj"))
+ goto out;
+
+ fentry_link = bpf_program__attach_trace(fentry_prog);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(fentry_link, "attach_trace"))
+ goto out;
+
+ fentry_prog_fd = bpf_program__fd(fentry_prog);
+ if (!ASSERT_GE(fentry_prog_fd, 0, "fentry_prog_fd"))
+ goto out;
+
+ prog_array = bpf_object__find_map_by_name(fentry_obj, "jmp_table");
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(prog_array, "find jmp_table"))
+ goto out;
+
+ map_fd = bpf_map__fd(prog_array);
+ if (!ASSERT_GE(map_fd, 0, "map_fd"))
+ goto out;
+
+ i = 0;
+ err = bpf_map_update_elem(map_fd, &i, &fentry_prog_fd, BPF_ANY);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "update jmp_table"))
+ goto out;
+
+ data_map = bpf_object__find_map_by_name(fentry_obj, ".bss");
+ if (!ASSERT_FALSE(!data_map || !bpf_map__is_internal(data_map),
+ "find data_map"))
+ goto out;
+
+ } else {
+ prog_array = bpf_object__find_map_by_name(obj, "jmp_table");
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(prog_array, "find jmp_table"))
+ goto out;
+
+ map_fd = bpf_map__fd(prog_array);
+ if (!ASSERT_GE(map_fd, 0, "map_fd"))
+ goto out;
+
+ i = 0;
+ err = bpf_map_update_elem(map_fd, &i, &prog_fd, BPF_ANY);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "update jmp_table"))
+ goto out;
+
+ data_map = bpf_object__find_map_by_name(obj, ".bss");
+ if (!ASSERT_FALSE(!data_map || !bpf_map__is_internal(data_map),
+ "find data_map"))
+ goto out;
+ }
+
+ if (test_fentry) {
+ fentry_obj = bpf_object__open_file("tailcall_bpf2bpf_fentry.bpf.o",
+ NULL);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(fentry_obj, "open fentry_obj file"))
+ goto out;
+
+ prog = bpf_object__find_program_by_name(fentry_obj, "fentry");
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(prog, "find fentry prog"))
+ goto out;
+
+ err = bpf_program__set_attach_target(prog, prog_fd,
+ "subprog_tail");
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "set_attach_target subprog_tail"))
+ goto out;
+
+ err = bpf_object__load(fentry_obj);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "load fentry_obj"))
+ goto out;
+
+ fentry_link = bpf_program__attach_trace(prog);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(fentry_link, "attach_trace"))
+ goto out;
+ }
+
+ if (test_fexit) {
+ fexit_obj = bpf_object__open_file("tailcall_bpf2bpf_fexit.bpf.o",
+ NULL);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(fexit_obj, "open fexit_obj file"))
+ goto out;
+
+ prog = bpf_object__find_program_by_name(fexit_obj, "fexit");
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(prog, "find fexit prog"))
+ goto out;
+
+ err = bpf_program__set_attach_target(prog, prog_fd,
+ "subprog_tail");
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "set_attach_target subprog_tail"))
+ goto out;
+
+ err = bpf_object__load(fexit_obj);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "load fexit_obj"))
+ goto out;
+
+ fexit_link = bpf_program__attach_trace(prog);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(fexit_link, "attach_trace"))
+ goto out;
+ }
+
+ err = bpf_prog_test_run_opts(prog_fd, &topts);
+ ASSERT_OK(err, "tailcall");
+ ASSERT_EQ(topts.retval, 1, "tailcall retval");
+
+ main_data_fd = bpf_map__fd(data_map);
+ if (!ASSERT_GE(main_data_fd, 0, "main_data_fd"))
+ goto out;
+
+ i = 0;
+ err = bpf_map_lookup_elem(main_data_fd, &i, &val);
+ ASSERT_OK(err, "tailcall count");
+ ASSERT_EQ(val, 34, "tailcall count");
+
+ if (test_fentry) {
+ data_map = bpf_object__find_map_by_name(fentry_obj, ".bss");
+ if (!ASSERT_FALSE(!data_map || !bpf_map__is_internal(data_map),
+ "find tailcall_bpf2bpf_fentry.bss map"))
+ goto out;
+
+ fentry_data_fd = bpf_map__fd(data_map);
+ if (!ASSERT_GE(fentry_data_fd, 0,
+ "find tailcall_bpf2bpf_fentry.bss map fd"))
+ goto out;
+
+ i = 0;
+ err = bpf_map_lookup_elem(fentry_data_fd, &i, &val);
+ ASSERT_OK(err, "fentry count");
+ ASSERT_EQ(val, 68, "fentry count");
+ }
+
+ if (test_fexit) {
+ data_map = bpf_object__find_map_by_name(fexit_obj, ".bss");
+ if (!ASSERT_FALSE(!data_map || !bpf_map__is_internal(data_map),
+ "find tailcall_bpf2bpf_fexit.bss map"))
+ goto out;
+
+ fexit_data_fd = bpf_map__fd(data_map);
+ if (!ASSERT_GE(fexit_data_fd, 0,
+ "find tailcall_bpf2bpf_fexit.bss map fd"))
+ goto out;
+
+ i = 0;
+ err = bpf_map_lookup_elem(fexit_data_fd, &i, &val);
+ ASSERT_OK(err, "fexit count");
+ ASSERT_EQ(val, 68, "fexit count");
+ }
+
+ i = 0;
+ err = bpf_map_delete_elem(map_fd, &i);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "delete_elem from jmp_table"))
+ goto out;
+
+ err = bpf_prog_test_run_opts(prog_fd, &topts);
+ ASSERT_OK(err, "tailcall");
+ ASSERT_EQ(topts.retval, 1, "tailcall retval");
+
+ i = 0;
+ err = bpf_map_lookup_elem(main_data_fd, &i, &val);
+ ASSERT_OK(err, "tailcall count");
+ ASSERT_EQ(val, 35, "tailcall count");
+
+ if (test_fentry) {
+ i = 0;
+ err = bpf_map_lookup_elem(fentry_data_fd, &i, &val);
+ ASSERT_OK(err, "fentry count");
+ ASSERT_EQ(val, 70, "fentry count");
+ }
+
+ if (test_fexit) {
+ i = 0;
+ err = bpf_map_lookup_elem(fexit_data_fd, &i, &val);
+ ASSERT_OK(err, "fexit count");
+ ASSERT_EQ(val, 70, "fexit count");
+ }
+
+out:
+ bpf_link__destroy(fentry_link);
+ bpf_link__destroy(fexit_link);
+ bpf_object__close(fentry_obj);
+ bpf_object__close(fexit_obj);
+ bpf_object__close(obj);
+}
+
+/* test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_1 checks that the count value of the tail
+ * call limit enforcement matches with expectations when tailcalls are preceded
+ * with two bpf2bpf calls.
+ *
+ * subprog --tailcall-> entry
+ * entry <
+ * subprog --tailcall-> entry
+ */
+static void test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_1(void)
+{
+ test_tailcall_hierarchy_count("tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy1.bpf.o",
+ false, false, false);
+}
+
+/* test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_fentry checks that the count value of the
+ * tail call limit enforcement matches with expectations when tailcalls are
+ * preceded with two bpf2bpf calls, and the two subprogs are traced by fentry.
+ */
+static void test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_fentry(void)
+{
+ test_tailcall_hierarchy_count("tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy1.bpf.o",
+ true, false, false);
+}
+
+/* test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_fexit checks that the count value of the tail
+ * call limit enforcement matches with expectations when tailcalls are preceded
+ * with two bpf2bpf calls, and the two subprogs are traced by fexit.
+ */
+static void test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_fexit(void)
+{
+ test_tailcall_hierarchy_count("tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy1.bpf.o",
+ false, true, false);
+}
+
+/* test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_fentry_fexit checks that the count value of
+ * the tail call limit enforcement matches with expectations when tailcalls are
+ * preceded with two bpf2bpf calls, and the two subprogs are traced by both
+ * fentry and fexit.
+ */
+static void test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_fentry_fexit(void)
+{
+ test_tailcall_hierarchy_count("tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy1.bpf.o",
+ true, true, false);
+}
+
+/* test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_fentry_entry checks that the count value of
+ * the tail call limit enforcement matches with expectations when tailcalls are
+ * preceded with two bpf2bpf calls in fentry.
+ */
+static void test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_fentry_entry(void)
+{
+ test_tailcall_hierarchy_count("tc_dummy.bpf.o", false, false, true);
+}
+
+/* test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_2 checks that the count value of the tail
+ * call limit enforcement matches with expectations:
+ *
+ * subprog_tail0 --tailcall-> classifier_0 -> subprog_tail0
+ * entry <
+ * subprog_tail1 --tailcall-> classifier_1 -> subprog_tail1
+ */
+static void test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_2(void)
+{
+ RUN_TESTS(tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy2);
+}
+
+/* test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_3 checks that the count value of the tail
+ * call limit enforcement matches with expectations:
+ *
+ * subprog with jmp_table0 to classifier_0
+ * entry --tailcall-> classifier_0 <
+ * subprog with jmp_table1 to classifier_0
+ */
+static void test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_3(void)
+{
+ RUN_TESTS(tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy3);
+}
+
void test_tailcalls(void)
{
if (test__start_subtest("tailcall_1"))
@@ -1223,4 +1531,16 @@ void test_tailcalls(void)
test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_fentry_entry();
if (test__start_subtest("tailcall_poke"))
test_tailcall_poke();
+ if (test__start_subtest("tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_1"))
+ test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_1();
+ if (test__start_subtest("tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_fentry"))
+ test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_fentry();
+ if (test__start_subtest("tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_fexit"))
+ test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_fexit();
+ if (test__start_subtest("tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_fentry_fexit"))
+ test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_fentry_fexit();
+ if (test__start_subtest("tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_fentry_entry"))
+ test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_fentry_entry();
+ test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_2();
+ test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_3();
}
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy1.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy1.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000..327ca395e8601
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy1.c
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+#include <linux/bpf.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
+#include "bpf_legacy.h"
+
+struct {
+ __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_PROG_ARRAY);
+ __uint(max_entries, 1);
+ __uint(key_size, sizeof(__u32));
+ __uint(value_size, sizeof(__u32));
+} jmp_table SEC(".maps");
+
+int count = 0;
+
+static __noinline
+int subprog_tail(struct __sk_buff *skb)
+{
+ bpf_tail_call_static(skb, &jmp_table, 0);
+ return 0;
+}
+
+SEC("tc")
+int entry(struct __sk_buff *skb)
+{
+ int ret = 1;
+
+ count++;
+ subprog_tail(skb);
+ subprog_tail(skb);
+
+ return ret;
+}
+
+char __license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy2.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy2.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000..37604b0b97aff
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy2.c
@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+#include <linux/bpf.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
+#include "bpf_misc.h"
+
+int classifier_0(struct __sk_buff *skb);
+int classifier_1(struct __sk_buff *skb);
+
+struct {
+ __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_PROG_ARRAY);
+ __uint(max_entries, 2);
+ __uint(key_size, sizeof(__u32));
+ __array(values, void (void));
+} jmp_table SEC(".maps") = {
+ .values = {
+ [0] = (void *) &classifier_0,
+ [1] = (void *) &classifier_1,
+ },
+};
+
+int count0 = 0;
+int count1 = 0;
+
+static __noinline
+int subprog_tail0(struct __sk_buff *skb)
+{
+ bpf_tail_call_static(skb, &jmp_table, 0);
+ return 0;
+}
+
+__auxiliary
+SEC("tc")
+int classifier_0(struct __sk_buff *skb)
+{
+ count0++;
+ subprog_tail0(skb);
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static __noinline
+int subprog_tail1(struct __sk_buff *skb)
+{
+ bpf_tail_call_static(skb, &jmp_table, 1);
+ return 0;
+}
+
+__auxiliary
+SEC("tc")
+int classifier_1(struct __sk_buff *skb)
+{
+ count1++;
+ subprog_tail1(skb);
+ return 0;
+}
+
+__success
+__retval(33)
+SEC("tc")
+int tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_2(struct __sk_buff *skb)
+{
+ volatile int ret = 0;
+
+ subprog_tail0(skb);
+ subprog_tail1(skb);
+
+ asm volatile (""::"r+"(ret));
+ return (count1 << 16) | count0;
+}
+
+char __license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy3.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy3.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000..0cdbb781fcbc5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy3.c
@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+#include <linux/bpf.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
+#include "bpf_misc.h"
+
+int classifier_0(struct __sk_buff *skb);
+
+struct {
+ __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_PROG_ARRAY);
+ __uint(max_entries, 1);
+ __uint(key_size, sizeof(__u32));
+ __array(values, void (void));
+} jmp_table0 SEC(".maps") = {
+ .values = {
+ [0] = (void *) &classifier_0,
+ },
+};
+
+struct {
+ __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_PROG_ARRAY);
+ __uint(max_entries, 1);
+ __uint(key_size, sizeof(__u32));
+ __array(values, void (void));
+} jmp_table1 SEC(".maps") = {
+ .values = {
+ [0] = (void *) &classifier_0,
+ },
+};
+
+int count = 0;
+
+static __noinline
+int subprog_tail(struct __sk_buff *skb, void *jmp_table)
+{
+ bpf_tail_call_static(skb, jmp_table, 0);
+ return 0;
+}
+
+__auxiliary
+SEC("tc")
+int classifier_0(struct __sk_buff *skb)
+{
+ count++;
+ subprog_tail(skb, &jmp_table0);
+ subprog_tail(skb, &jmp_table1);
+ return count;
+}
+
+__success
+__retval(33)
+SEC("tc")
+int tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_3(struct __sk_buff *skb)
+{
+ volatile int ret = 0;
+
+ bpf_tail_call_static(skb, &jmp_table0, 0);
+
+ asm volatile (""::"r+"(ret));
+ return ret;
+}
+
+char __license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_fentry.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_fentry.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000..c87f9ca982d3e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_fentry.c
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+/* Copyright Leon Hwang */
+
+#include "vmlinux.h"
+#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
+
+struct {
+ __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_PROG_ARRAY);
+ __uint(max_entries, 1);
+ __uint(key_size, sizeof(__u32));
+ __uint(value_size, sizeof(__u32));
+} jmp_table SEC(".maps");
+
+int count = 0;
+
+static __noinline
+int subprog_tail(void *ctx)
+{
+ bpf_tail_call_static(ctx, &jmp_table, 0);
+ return 0;
+}
+
+SEC("fentry/dummy")
+int BPF_PROG(fentry, struct sk_buff *skb)
+{
+ count++;
+ subprog_tail(ctx);
+ subprog_tail(ctx);
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+
+char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tc_dummy.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tc_dummy.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000..69a3d0dc87879
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tc_dummy.c
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+#include <linux/bpf.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
+#include "bpf_legacy.h"
+
+SEC("tc")
+int entry(struct __sk_buff *skb)
+{
+ return 1;
+}
+
+char __license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
--
2.44.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v6 bpf-next 0/3] bpf: Fix tailcall hierarchy
2024-07-14 12:38 [PATCH v6 bpf-next 0/3] bpf: Fix tailcall hierarchy Leon Hwang
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2024-07-14 12:39 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 3/3] selftests/bpf: Add testcases for tailcall hierarchy fixing Leon Hwang
@ 2024-07-19 23:52 ` bot+bpf-ci
2024-07-20 2:57 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2024-07-20 3:00 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: bot+bpf-ci @ 2024-07-19 23:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: bpf, kernel-ci
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 584 bytes --]
Dear patch submitter,
CI has tested the following submission:
Status: FAILURE
Name: [v6,bpf-next,0/3] bpf: Fix tailcall hierarchy
Patchwork: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=871133&state=*
Matrix: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/10015594671
Failed jobs:
test_maps-s390x-gcc: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/10015594671/job/27687419423
Please note: this email is coming from an unmonitored mailbox. If you have
questions or feedback, please reach out to the Meta Kernel CI team at
kernel-ci@meta.com.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v6 bpf-next 0/3] bpf: Fix tailcall hierarchy
2024-07-14 12:38 [PATCH v6 bpf-next 0/3] bpf: Fix tailcall hierarchy Leon Hwang
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2024-07-19 23:52 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 0/3] bpf: Fix tailcall hierarchy bot+bpf-ci
@ 2024-07-20 2:57 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2024-07-20 3:00 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Alexei Starovoitov @ 2024-07-20 2:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Leon Hwang
Cc: bpf, Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko,
Fijalkowski, Maciej, Eddy Z, Puranjay Mohan, Jakub Sitnicki,
Pu Lehui, kernel-patches-bot, John Fastabend
On Sun, Jul 14, 2024 at 5:39 AM Leon Hwang <hffilwlqm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This patchset fixes a tailcall hierarchy issue.
Thank you for sticking to it. Applied to bpf-next.
It took almost a year, but the final fix is imo much better
than all the previous attempts.
I suspect some tail_call users may see a small performance
degradation, but it's a trade off we had to make.
The evolution of the fix made the perf hit as small as possible.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v6 bpf-next 0/3] bpf: Fix tailcall hierarchy
2024-07-14 12:38 [PATCH v6 bpf-next 0/3] bpf: Fix tailcall hierarchy Leon Hwang
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2024-07-20 2:57 ` Alexei Starovoitov
@ 2024-07-20 3:00 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: patchwork-bot+netdevbpf @ 2024-07-20 3:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Leon Hwang
Cc: bpf, ast, daniel, andrii, maciej.fijalkowski, eddyz87, puranjay,
jakub, pulehui, kernel-patches-bot
Hello:
This series was applied to bpf/bpf-next.git (master)
by Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>:
On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 20:38:59 +0800 you wrote:
> This patchset fixes a tailcall hierarchy issue.
>
> The issue is confirmed in the discussions of "bpf, x64: Fix tailcall
> infinite loop"[0].
>
> The issue has been resolved on both x86_64 and arm64[1].
>
> [...]
Here is the summary with links:
- [v6,bpf-next,1/3] bpf, x64: Fix tailcall hierarchy
https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf-next/c/00ac9693a3ba
- [v6,bpf-next,2/3] bpf, arm64: Fix tailcall hierarchy
https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf-next/c/a53c0f324aed
- [v6,bpf-next,3/3] selftests/bpf: Add testcases for tailcall hierarchy fixing
https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf-next/c/92a227f61911
You are awesome, thank you!
--
Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot.
https://korg.docs.kernel.org/patchwork/pwbot.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread