From: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
To: Paul Chaignon <paul.chaignon@gmail.com>, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/3] bpf: Report maximum combined stack depth
Date: Wed, 13 May 2026 16:24:16 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1ca8beb266c48d54d2c5eeceb0345bb10969c069.camel@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d3d23a0410f87f116f3bbaa98a815dbae113bda2.1778700777.git.paul.chaignon@gmail.com>
On Wed, 2026-05-13 at 21:34 +0200, Paul Chaignon wrote:
> We've hit the 512 bytes limit on stack depth a few times in Cilium
> recently. As a result, we started reporting in CI our current maximum
> stack depth across all configurations for each BPF program.
>
> Unfortunately, that is not trivial to compute in userspace. The
> verifier reports the stack depths of individual subprogs at the end of
> the logs. However the maximum combined stack depth also depends on the
> callgraph of those subprogs (the max combined stack depth is the height
> of the callgraph weighted by per-subprog stack depths). We can compute
> a callgraph in userspace from the loaded instructions, but it often
> doesn't match the verifier's own callgraph because of dead code
> elimination. Our current approach relies on dumping the BPF_LOG_LEVEL2
> logs, but this feels overkill considering the verifier already has the
> information we need.
>
> The patch lets the verifier dump the maximum combined stack depth in
> the logs, on the same line as the per-subprog stack depths:
>
> stack depth 16+256 max 272
>
> The per-subprog stack depths and the new max stack depth are not
> directly comparable. The former is sometimes updated during fixups,
> while the latter is not. As a result, even with a single subprog, we
> may end up with two slightly different values. The aim of the new max
> value is to be closest to what is actually enforced by the verifier.
>
> Signed-off-by: Paul Chaignon <paul.chaignon@gmail.com>
> ---
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
[...]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-05-13 23:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-05-13 19:33 [PATCH bpf-next v3 0/3] bpf: Maximum combined stack depth Paul Chaignon
2026-05-13 19:34 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/3] bpf: Report maximum " Paul Chaignon
2026-05-13 23:24 ` Eduard Zingerman [this message]
2026-05-13 19:35 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 2/3] selftests/bpf: Test reported max " Paul Chaignon
2026-05-13 23:31 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-05-13 19:35 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 3/3] veristat: Report " Paul Chaignon
2026-05-13 23:23 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-05-14 1:40 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 0/3] bpf: Maximum combined " patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
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=1ca8beb266c48d54d2c5eeceb0345bb10969c069.camel@gmail.com \
--to=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=paul.chaignon@gmail.com \
/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