| Message ID | 20200916211010.3685-7-maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | None | expand |
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 3:54 PM Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com> wrote: > > Relax verifier's restriction that was meant to forbid tailcall usage > when subprog count was higher than 1. > > Also, do not max out the stack depth of program that utilizes tailcalls. > > Signed-off-by: Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com> > --- Maciej, Only patches 6 and 7 arrived (a while ago) and seems like the other patches are lost and not going to come. Do you mind resending entire patch set? [...]
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 02:03:32PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 3:54 PM Maciej Fijalkowski > <maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com> wrote: > > > > Relax verifier's restriction that was meant to forbid tailcall usage > > when subprog count was higher than 1. > > > > Also, do not max out the stack depth of program that utilizes tailcalls. > > > > Signed-off-by: Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com> > > --- > > Maciej, > > Only patches 6 and 7 arrived (a while ago) and seems like the other > patches are lost and not going to come. Do you mind resending entire > patch set? Sure. Vger lately has been giving me a hard time, thought that maybe rest of set would eventually arrive, similarly to what Toke experienced I guess. > > [...]
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 3:51 PM Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 02:03:32PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 3:54 PM Maciej Fijalkowski > > <maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > Relax verifier's restriction that was meant to forbid tailcall usage > > > when subprog count was higher than 1. > > > > > > Also, do not max out the stack depth of program that utilizes tailcalls. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com> > > > --- > > > > Maciej, > > > > Only patches 6 and 7 arrived (a while ago) and seems like the other > > patches are lost and not going to come. Do you mind resending entire > > patch set? > > Sure. Vger lately has been giving me a hard time, thought that maybe rest > of set would eventually arrive, similarly to what Toke experienced I > guess. I've got the patches. No need to resend.
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 644ee9286ecf..05034cff89ca 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -4384,10 +4384,12 @@ static int check_map_func_compatibility(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, case BPF_FUNC_tail_call: if (map->map_type != BPF_MAP_TYPE_PROG_ARRAY) goto error; +#if !defined(CONFIG_X86_64) || !defined(CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON) if (env->subprog_cnt > 1) { verbose(env, "tail_calls are not allowed in programs with bpf-to-bpf calls\n"); return -EINVAL; } +#endif break; case BPF_FUNC_perf_event_read: case BPF_FUNC_perf_event_output: @@ -10633,7 +10635,9 @@ static int fixup_bpf_calls(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) * the program array. */ prog->cb_access = 1; +#if !defined(CONFIG_X86_64) || !defined(CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON) env->prog->aux->stack_depth = MAX_BPF_STACK; +#endif env->prog->aux->max_pkt_offset = MAX_PACKET_OFF; /* mark bpf_tail_call as different opcode to avoid
Relax verifier's restriction that was meant to forbid tailcall usage when subprog count was higher than 1. Also, do not max out the stack depth of program that utilizes tailcalls. Signed-off-by: Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com> --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)