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 */ >
next prev parent 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: linkBe 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).