[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <912b5e97-1951-5a7c-e3c1-41bc3bf4b58a@iogearbox.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 23:29:28 +0200
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To: Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>, ast@...nel.org
Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, bjorn.topel@...el.com,
magnus.karlsson@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/5] bpf: allow for tailcalls in BPF subprograms
On 7/16/20 1:36 AM, Maciej Fijalkowski 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@...el.com>
> ---
> kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 5 -----
> 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index 3c1efc9d08fd..6481342b31ba 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -4172,10 +4172,6 @@ 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 (env->subprog_cnt > 1) {
> - verbose(env, "tail_calls are not allowed in programs with bpf-to-bpf calls\n");
> - return -EINVAL;
> - }
> break;
> case BPF_FUNC_perf_event_read:
> case BPF_FUNC_perf_event_output:
> @@ -10252,7 +10248,6 @@ static int fixup_bpf_calls(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
> * the program array.
> */
> prog->cb_access = 1;
> - env->prog->aux->stack_depth = MAX_BPF_STACK;
> env->prog->aux->max_pkt_offset = MAX_PACKET_OFF;
>
> /* mark bpf_tail_call as different opcode to avoid
Also, isn't this broken when JIT is not used (as in stack oob access)?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists