[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8cf09e73329b3205a64eae4886b02fea@dlink.ru>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 12:32:53 +0300
From: Alexander Lobakin <alobakin@...nk.ru>
To: Paul Burton <paulburton@...nel.org>
Cc: Paul Chaignon <paul.chaignon@...nge.com>,
Björn Töpel
<bjorn.topel@...il.com>, Mahshid Khezri <khezri.mahshid@...il.com>,
paul.chaignon@...il.com, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf 2/2] bpf, mips: limit to 33 tail calls
Paul Burton wrote 11.12.2019 02:23:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Mon, Dec 09, 2019 at 07:52:52PM +0100, Paul Chaignon wrote:
>> All BPF JIT compilers except RISC-V's and MIPS' enforce a 33-tail
>> calls
>> limit at runtime. In addition, a test was recently added, in
>> tailcalls2,
>> to check this limit.
>>
>> This patch updates the tail call limit in MIPS' JIT compiler to allow
>> 33 tail calls.
Hi Paul,
You've restored MIPS cBPF in mips-fixes tree, doesn't it require any
changes to limit tail calls to 33? This series includes only eBPF as
there was no MIPS cBPF at the moment of writing.
>> Fixes: b6bd53f9c4e8 ("MIPS: Add missing file for eBPF JIT.")
>> Reported-by: Mahshid Khezri <khezri.mahshid@...il.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Paul Chaignon <paul.chaignon@...nge.com>
>
> I'd be happy to take this through mips-fixes, but equally happy for it
> to go through the BPF/net trees in which case:
>
> Acked-by: Paul Burton <paulburton@...nel.org>
>
> Thanks,
> Paul
>
>> ---
>> arch/mips/net/ebpf_jit.c | 9 +++++----
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/mips/net/ebpf_jit.c b/arch/mips/net/ebpf_jit.c
>> index 46b76751f3a5..3ec69d9cbe88 100644
>> --- a/arch/mips/net/ebpf_jit.c
>> +++ b/arch/mips/net/ebpf_jit.c
>> @@ -604,6 +604,7 @@ static void emit_const_to_reg(struct jit_ctx *ctx,
>> int dst, u64 value)
>> static int emit_bpf_tail_call(struct jit_ctx *ctx, int this_idx)
>> {
>> int off, b_off;
>> + int tcc_reg;
>>
>> ctx->flags |= EBPF_SEEN_TC;
>> /*
>> @@ -616,14 +617,14 @@ static int emit_bpf_tail_call(struct jit_ctx
>> *ctx, int this_idx)
>> b_off = b_imm(this_idx + 1, ctx);
>> emit_instr(ctx, bne, MIPS_R_AT, MIPS_R_ZERO, b_off);
>> /*
>> - * if (--TCC < 0)
>> + * if (TCC-- < 0)
>> * goto out;
>> */
>> /* Delay slot */
>> - emit_instr(ctx, daddiu, MIPS_R_T5,
>> - (ctx->flags & EBPF_TCC_IN_V1) ? MIPS_R_V1 : MIPS_R_S4, -1);
>> + tcc_reg = (ctx->flags & EBPF_TCC_IN_V1) ? MIPS_R_V1 : MIPS_R_S4;
>> + emit_instr(ctx, daddiu, MIPS_R_T5, tcc_reg, -1);
>> b_off = b_imm(this_idx + 1, ctx);
>> - emit_instr(ctx, bltz, MIPS_R_T5, b_off);
>> + emit_instr(ctx, bltz, tcc_reg, b_off);
>> /*
>> * prog = array->ptrs[index];
>> * if (prog == NULL)
>> --
>> 2.17.1
>>
Regards,
ᚷ ᛖ ᚢ ᚦ ᚠ ᚱ
Powered by blists - more mailing lists