From: Zvi Effron <zeffron@riotgames.com>
To: Leon Hwang <hffilwlqm@gmail.com>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net,
andrii@kernel.org, maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com,
jakub@cloudflare.com, pulehui@huawei.com,
kernel-patches-bot@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 3/5] bpf, x64: Fix tailcall hierarchy
Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 11:56:47 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAC1LvL27bXu5zbPj+wO1hQCGvdHooUbQchiwwawyd+iokKc42Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a6b60575-6342-4ce7-9652-2a7438a3e1f4@gmail.com>
On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 8:28 AM Leon Hwang <hffilwlqm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2024/5/9 23:05, Leon Hwang wrote:
> > 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 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
> > propagate 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 bpf prog's caller by the way in
> > previous patch "bpf: Introduce bpf_jit_supports_tail_call_cnt_ptr()".
> > Then, in bpf prog's prologue, it loads tcc_ptr from bpf_tail_call_run_ctx,
> > and restores the original ctx from bpf_tail_call_run_ctx meanwhile.
> >
> > Then, when a tailcall runs, it compares tail_call_cnt accessed by
> > tcc_ptr with MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT and then increments tail_call_cnt at
> > tcc_ptr.
> >
> > Furthermore, when trampoline is the caller of bpf prog, it is required
> > to prepare tail_call_cnt and tail call run ctx on the stack of the
> > trampoline.
> >
>
> Oh, I missed a case here.
>
> This patch set is unable to provide tcc_ptr for freplace programs that
> use tail calls in bpf2bpf.
>
> How can this approach provide tcc_ptr for freplace programs?
>
> Achieving this is not straightforward. However, it is simpler to disable
> the use of tail calls in bpf2bpf for freplace programs, even though this
> is a desired feature for my project.
>
> Therefore, I will disable it in the v5 patch set.
>
Isn't this a breaking change such that it would effectively be a regression for
any users already using tail_calls in bpf2bpf for freplace programs? And,
correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't those pieces of eBPF essentially considered
UAPI stable (unlike kfuncs)?
I appreciate that this is an esoteric use of eBPF, but as you said, you have a
use case for it, as does my team (although we haven't had a chance to implement
it yet), and if the two of us have use cases for it, I imagine other may have
as well, and some of them might already have done their implementation.
> Thanks,
> Leon
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-05-16 18:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-05-09 15:05 [PATCH bpf-next v4 0/5] bpf: Fix tailcall hierarchy Leon Hwang
2024-05-09 15:05 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 1/5] bpf, verifier: Correct tail_call_reachable when no tailcall in subprog Leon Hwang
2024-05-09 15:05 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 2/5] bpf: Introduce bpf_jit_supports_tail_call_cnt_ptr() Leon Hwang
2024-05-09 15:05 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 3/5] bpf, x64: Fix tailcall hierarchy Leon Hwang
2024-05-16 15:28 ` Leon Hwang
2024-05-16 18:56 ` Zvi Effron [this message]
2024-05-17 15:05 ` Leon Hwang
2024-05-09 15:05 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 4/5] bpf, arm64: " Leon Hwang
2024-05-09 15:05 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 5/5] selftests/bpf: Add testcases for tailcall hierarchy fixing 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=CAC1LvL27bXu5zbPj+wO1hQCGvdHooUbQchiwwawyd+iokKc42Q@mail.gmail.com \
--to=zeffron@riotgames.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=hffilwlqm@gmail.com \
--cc=jakub@cloudflare.com \
--cc=kernel-patches-bot@fb.com \
--cc=maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com \
--cc=pulehui@huawei.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;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).