[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d12561c3-23c6-3f48-611f-868be990e1a2@iogearbox.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 00:46:19 +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 11:29 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> 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)?
(Similarly for non-x86 archs after this set.)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists