Netdev Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
To: Johan Almbladh <johan.almbladh@anyfinetworks.com>,
	ast@kernel.org, andrii@kernel.org
Cc: kafai@fb.com, songliubraving@fb.com, yhs@fb.com,
	john.fastabend@gmail.com, kpsingh@kernel.org,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
	illusionist.neo@gmail.com, zlim.lnx@gmail.com,
	paulburton@kernel.org, naveen.n.rao@linux.ibm.com,
	sandipan@linux.ibm.com, luke.r.nels@gmail.com, bjorn@kernel.org,
	iii@linux.ibm.com, hca@linux.ibm.com, gor@linux.ibm.com,
	davem@davemloft.net, udknight@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 7/7] x86: bpf: Fix comments on tail call count limiting
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2021 17:41:57 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bab35321-9142-c51d-7244-438fc5a0efb9@iogearbox.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210809093437.876558-8-johan.almbladh@anyfinetworks.com>

On 8/9/21 11:34 AM, Johan Almbladh wrote:
> Before, the comments in the 32-bit eBPF JIT claimed that up to
> MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT + 1 tail calls were allowed, when in fact the
> implementation was using the correct limit of MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT.
> Now, the comments are in line with what the code actually does.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Johan Almbladh <johan.almbladh@anyfinetworks.com>
> ---
>   arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c | 6 +++---
>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c
> index 3bfda5f502cb..8db9ab11abda 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c
> @@ -1272,7 +1272,7 @@ static void emit_epilogue(u8 **pprog, u32 stack_depth)
>    * ... 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 (tail_call_cnt++ >= MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT)
>    *     goto out;
>    *   prog = array->ptrs[index];
>    *   if (prog == NULL)
> @@ -1307,7 +1307,7 @@ static void emit_bpf_tail_call(u8 **pprog)
>   	EMIT2(IA32_JBE, jmp_label(jmp_label1, 2));
>   
>   	/*
> -	 * if (tail_call_cnt > MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT)
> +	 * if (tail_call_cnt >= MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT)
>   	 *     goto out;
>   	 */
>   	lo = (u32)MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT;
> @@ -1321,7 +1321,7 @@ static void emit_bpf_tail_call(u8 **pprog)
>   	/* cmp ecx,lo */
>   	EMIT3(0x83, add_1reg(0xF8, IA32_ECX), lo);
>   
> -	/* ja out */
> +	/* jae out */
>   	EMIT2(IA32_JAE, jmp_label(jmp_label1, 2));

You have me confused here ... b61a28cf11d6 ("bpf: Fix off-by-one in tail call count
limiting") from bpf-next says '[interpreter is now] in line with the behavior of the
x86 JITs'. From the latter I assumed you implicitly refer to x86-64. Which one did you
test specifically wrt the prior statement? It looks like x86-64 vs x86-32 differ:

   [...]
   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 */
   EMIT2(X86_JA, OFFSET2);                   /* ja out */
   EMIT3(0x83, 0xC0, 0x01);                  /* add eax, 1 */
   EMIT2_off32(0x89, 0x85, tcc_off);         /* mov dword ptr [rbp - tcc_off], eax */
   [...]

So it's ja vs jae ... unless I need more coffee? ;)

>   	/* add eax,0x1 */
> 


  reply	other threads:[~2021-08-09 15:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-08-09  9:34 [PATCH bpf-next 0/7] Fix MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT handling in eBPF JITs Johan Almbladh
2021-08-09  9:34 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/7] arm: bpf: Fix off-by-one in tail call count limiting Johan Almbladh
2021-08-09  9:34 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/7] arm64: " Johan Almbladh
2021-08-09  9:34 ` [PATCH bpf-next 3/7] powerpc: " Johan Almbladh
2021-08-09  9:34 ` [PATCH bpf-next 4/7] s390: " Johan Almbladh
2021-08-09 12:24   ` Ilya Leoshkevich
2021-08-09 21:09     ` Johan Almbladh
2021-08-09  9:34 ` [PATCH bpf-next 5/7] sparc: " Johan Almbladh
2021-08-09  9:34 ` [PATCH bpf-next 6/7] mips: " Johan Almbladh
2021-08-09  9:34 ` [PATCH bpf-next 7/7] x86: bpf: Fix comments on " Johan Almbladh
2021-08-09 15:41   ` Daniel Borkmann [this message]
2021-08-09 18:02     ` Johan Almbladh
2021-08-12 16:36 ` [PATCH bpf-next 0/7] Fix MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT handling in eBPF JITs Paul Chaignon
2021-08-16  7:17   ` Johan Almbladh

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=bab35321-9142-c51d-7244-438fc5a0efb9@iogearbox.net \
    --to=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bjorn@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=iii@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=illusionist.neo@gmail.com \
    --cc=johan.almbladh@anyfinetworks.com \
    --cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
    --cc=kafai@fb.com \
    --cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
    --cc=luke.r.nels@gmail.com \
    --cc=naveen.n.rao@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=paulburton@kernel.org \
    --cc=sandipan@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=songliubraving@fb.com \
    --cc=udknight@gmail.com \
    --cc=yhs@fb.com \
    --cc=zlim.lnx@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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).