public inbox for bpf@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mykyta Yatsenko <mykyta.yatsenko5@gmail.com>
To: Emil Tsalapatis <emil@etsalapatis.com>, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: andrii@kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net,
	eddyz87@gmail.com, martin.lau@kernel.org, memxor@gmail.com,
	song@kernel.org, yonghong.song@linux.dev,
	Emil Tsalapatis <emil@etsalapatis.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 1/2] bpf: Only enforce 8 frame call stack limit for all-static stacks
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2026 14:04:38 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87tsunu6fd.fsf@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260309204430.201219-2-emil@etsalapatis.com>

Emil Tsalapatis <emil@etsalapatis.com> writes:

> The BPF verifier currently enforces a call stack depth of 8 frames,
> regardless of the actual stack space consumption of those frames. The
> limit is necessary for static call stacks, because the bookkeeping data
> structures used by the verifier when stepping into static functions
> during verification only support 8 stack frames. However, this
> limitation only matters for static stack frames: Global subprogs are
> verified by themselves and do not require limiting the call depth.
>
> Relax this limitation to only apply to static stack frames. Verification
> now only fails when there is a sequence of 8 calls to non-global
> subprogs. Calling into a global subprog resets the counter. This allows
> deeper call stacks, provided all frames still fit in the stack.
>
> The change does not increase the maximum size of the call stack, only
> the maximum number of frames we can place in it.
>
> Also change the progs/test_global_func3.c selftest to use static
> functions, since with the new patch it would otherwise unexpectedly
> pass verification.
>
> Signed-off-by: Emil Tsalapatis <emil@etsalapatis.com>
> ---
Acked-by: Mykyta Yatsenko <yatsenko@meta.com>
>  include/linux/bpf_verifier.h                  |  9 ++++
>  kernel/bpf/verifier.c                         | 52 ++++++++++++-------
>  .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_global_func3.c   | 18 +++----
>  3 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
> index 090aa26d1c98..b45c3bb801c5 100644
> --- a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
> +++ b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
> @@ -651,6 +651,12 @@ enum priv_stack_mode {
>  	PRIV_STACK_ADAPTIVE,
>  };
>  
> +struct bpf_subprog_call_depth_info {
> +	int ret_insn; /* caller instruction where we return to. */
> +	int caller; /* caller subprogram idx */
> +	int frame; /* # of consecutive static call stack frames on top of stack */
> +};
> +
>  struct bpf_subprog_info {
>  	/* 'start' has to be the first field otherwise find_subprog() won't work */
>  	u32 start; /* insn idx of function entry point */
> @@ -678,6 +684,9 @@ struct bpf_subprog_info {
>  
>  	enum priv_stack_mode priv_stack_mode;
>  	struct bpf_subprog_arg_info args[MAX_BPF_FUNC_REG_ARGS];
> +
> +	/* temporary state used for call frame depth calculation */
> +	struct bpf_subprog_call_depth_info dinfo;
>  };
>  
>  struct bpf_verifier_env;
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index 8e4f69918693..ccd4efec179d 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -6733,9 +6733,11 @@ static int check_max_stack_depth_subprog(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int idx,
>  	struct bpf_insn *insn = env->prog->insnsi;
>  	int depth = 0, frame = 0, i, subprog_end, subprog_depth;
>  	bool tail_call_reachable = false;
> -	int ret_insn[MAX_CALL_FRAMES];
> -	int ret_prog[MAX_CALL_FRAMES];
> -	int j;
> +	int total;
> +	int tmp;
> +
> +	/* no caller idx */
> +	subprog[idx].dinfo.caller = -1;
>  
>  	i = subprog[idx].start;
>  	if (!priv_stack_supported)
> @@ -6787,8 +6789,12 @@ static int check_max_stack_depth_subprog(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int idx,
>  	} else {
>  		depth += subprog_depth;
>  		if (depth > MAX_BPF_STACK) {
> +			total = 0;
> +			for (tmp = idx; tmp >= 0; tmp = subprog[tmp].dinfo.caller)
> +				total++;
> +
>  			verbose(env, "combined stack size of %d calls is %d. Too large\n",
> -				frame + 1, depth);
> +				total, depth);
>  			return -EACCES;
>  		}
>  	}
> @@ -6802,10 +6808,8 @@ static int check_max_stack_depth_subprog(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int idx,
>  
>  			if (!is_bpf_throw_kfunc(insn + i))
>  				continue;
> -			if (subprog[idx].is_cb)
> -				err = true;
> -			for (int c = 0; c < frame && !err; c++) {
> -				if (subprog[ret_prog[c]].is_cb) {
> +			for (tmp = idx; tmp >= 0 && !err; tmp = subprog[tmp].dinfo.caller) {
> +				if (subprog[tmp].is_cb) {
>  					err = true;
>  					break;
>  				}
> @@ -6821,8 +6825,6 @@ static int check_max_stack_depth_subprog(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int idx,
>  		if (!bpf_pseudo_call(insn + i) && !bpf_pseudo_func(insn + i))
>  			continue;
>  		/* remember insn and function to return to */
> -		ret_insn[frame] = i + 1;
> -		ret_prog[frame] = idx;
>  
>  		/* find the callee */
>  		next_insn = i + insn[i].imm + 1;
> @@ -6842,7 +6844,16 @@ static int check_max_stack_depth_subprog(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int idx,
>  				return -EINVAL;
>  			}
>  		}
> +
> +		/* store caller info for after we return from callee */
> +		subprog[idx].dinfo.frame = frame;
> +		subprog[idx].dinfo.ret_insn = i + 1;
> +
> +		/* push caller idx into callee's dinfo */
> +		subprog[sidx].dinfo.caller = idx;
> +
>  		i = next_insn;
> +
>  		idx = sidx;
>  		if (!priv_stack_supported)
>  			subprog[idx].priv_stack_mode = NO_PRIV_STACK;
> @@ -6850,7 +6861,7 @@ static int check_max_stack_depth_subprog(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int idx,
>  		if (subprog[idx].has_tail_call)
>  			tail_call_reachable = true;
>  
> -		frame++;
> +		frame = subprog_is_global(env, idx) ? 0 : frame + 1;
>  		if (frame >= MAX_CALL_FRAMES) {
>  			verbose(env, "the call stack of %d frames is too deep !\n",
>  				frame);
> @@ -6864,12 +6875,12 @@ static int check_max_stack_depth_subprog(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int idx,
>  	 * tail call counter throughout bpf2bpf calls combined with tailcalls
>  	 */
>  	if (tail_call_reachable)
> -		for (j = 0; j < frame; j++) {
> -			if (subprog[ret_prog[j]].is_exception_cb) {
> +		for (tmp = idx; tmp >= 0; tmp = subprog[tmp].dinfo.caller) {
> +			if (subprog[tmp].is_exception_cb) {
>  				verbose(env, "cannot tail call within exception cb\n");
>  				return -EINVAL;
>  			}
> -			subprog[ret_prog[j]].tail_call_reachable = true;
> +			subprog[tmp].tail_call_reachable = true;
>  		}
>  	if (subprog[0].tail_call_reachable)
>  		env->prog->aux->tail_call_reachable = true;
> @@ -6877,13 +6888,18 @@ static int check_max_stack_depth_subprog(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int idx,
>  	/* end of for() loop means the last insn of the 'subprog'
>  	 * was reached. Doesn't matter whether it was JA or EXIT
>  	 */
> -	if (frame == 0)
> +	if (frame == 0 && subprog[idx].dinfo.caller < 0)
>  		return 0;
>  	if (subprog[idx].priv_stack_mode != PRIV_STACK_ADAPTIVE)
>  		depth -= round_up_stack_depth(env, subprog[idx].stack_depth);
> -	frame--;
> -	i = ret_insn[frame];
> -	idx = ret_prog[frame];
> +
> +	/* pop caller idx from callee */
> +	idx = subprog[idx].dinfo.caller;
> +
> +	/* retrieve caller state from its frame */
> +	frame = subprog[idx].dinfo.frame;
> +	i = subprog[idx].dinfo.ret_insn;
> +
>  	goto continue_func;
>  }
>  
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_global_func3.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_global_func3.c
> index 142b682d3c2f..974fd8c19561 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_global_func3.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_global_func3.c
> @@ -5,56 +5,56 @@
>  #include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
>  #include "bpf_misc.h"
>  
> -__attribute__ ((noinline))
> +static __attribute__ ((noinline))
>  int f1(struct __sk_buff *skb)
>  {
>  	return skb->len;
>  }
>  
> -__attribute__ ((noinline))
> +static __attribute__ ((noinline))
>  int f2(int val, struct __sk_buff *skb)
>  {
>  	return f1(skb) + val;
>  }
>  
> -__attribute__ ((noinline))
> +static __attribute__ ((noinline))
>  int f3(int val, struct __sk_buff *skb, int var)
>  {
>  	return f2(var, skb) + val;
>  }
>  
> -__attribute__ ((noinline))
> +static __attribute__ ((noinline))
>  int f4(struct __sk_buff *skb)
>  {
>  	return f3(1, skb, 2);
>  }
>  
> -__attribute__ ((noinline))
> +static __attribute__ ((noinline))
>  int f5(struct __sk_buff *skb)
>  {
>  	return f4(skb);
>  }
>  
> -__attribute__ ((noinline))
> +static __attribute__ ((noinline))
>  int f6(struct __sk_buff *skb)
>  {
>  	return f5(skb);
>  }
>  
> -__attribute__ ((noinline))
> +static __attribute__ ((noinline))
>  int f7(struct __sk_buff *skb)
>  {
>  	return f6(skb);
>  }
>  
> -__attribute__ ((noinline))
> +static __attribute__ ((noinline))
>  int f8(struct __sk_buff *skb)
>  {
>  	return f7(skb);
>  }
>  
>  SEC("tc")
> -__failure __msg("the call stack of 8 frames")
> +__failure __msg("the call stack of 9 frames")
>  int global_func3(struct __sk_buff *skb)
>  {
>  	return f8(skb);
> -- 
> 2.49.0

  parent reply	other threads:[~2026-03-10 14:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-03-09 20:44 [PATCH bpf-next v4 0/2] bpf: Relax 8 frame limitation for global subprogs Emil Tsalapatis
2026-03-09 20:44 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 1/2] bpf: Only enforce 8 frame call stack limit for all-static stacks Emil Tsalapatis
2026-03-09 21:23   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-03-09 21:37   ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-03-10 19:07     ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-03-10 14:04   ` Mykyta Yatsenko [this message]
2026-03-09 20:44 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 2/2] bpf: Add deep call stack selftests Emil Tsalapatis
2026-03-11  2:59   ` Yonghong Song

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=87tsunu6fd.fsf@gmail.com \
    --to=mykyta.yatsenko5@gmail.com \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
    --cc=emil@etsalapatis.com \
    --cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
    --cc=memxor@gmail.com \
    --cc=song@kernel.org \
    --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