[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55B7B917.4090102@iogearbox.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 19:17:11 +0200
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
CC: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] ebpf, x86: fix general protection fault when tail
call is invoked
On 07/28/2015 07:02 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On 7/28/15 6:26 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> After patch, disassembly:
>>
>> [...]
>> 9e: lea 0x80(%rsi,%rdx,8),%rax <--- CONFIG_LOCKDEP/CONFIG_LOCK_STAT
>> 48 8d 84 d6 80 00 00 00
>> a6: mov (%rax),%rax
>> 48 8b 00
>> [...]
>>
>> [...]
>> 9e: lea 0x50(%rsi,%rdx,8),%rax <--- No CONFIG_LOCKDEP
>> 48 8d 84 d6 50 00 00 00
>> a6: mov (%rax),%rax
>> 48 8b 00
>> [...]
>>
>> Fixes: b52f00e6a715 ("x86: bpf_jit: implement bpf_tail_call() helper")
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann<daniel@...earbox.net>
>
> Thanks for fixing it.
No problem!
> Most of my development is actually with LOCKDEP on, but I don't ever
> turn LOCK_STAT on, so sadly missed this 48 byte increase of 80 byte
> structure :(
I feel that at some point we might have hit this anyway, e.g. Huawei
guys with their perf work further extending bpf_maps, etc, etc.
Thanks,
Daniel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists