[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20210809093437.876558-3-johan.almbladh@anyfinetworks.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2021 11:34:32 +0200
From: Johan Almbladh <johan.almbladh@...finetworks.com>
To: ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org
Cc: kafai@...com, songliubraving@...com, yhs@...com,
john.fastabend@...il.com, kpsingh@...nel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
illusionist.neo@...il.com, zlim.lnx@...il.com,
paulburton@...nel.org, naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com,
sandipan@...ux.ibm.com, luke.r.nels@...il.com, bjorn@...nel.org,
iii@...ux.ibm.com, hca@...ux.ibm.com, gor@...ux.ibm.com,
davem@...emloft.net, udknight@...il.com,
Johan Almbladh <johan.almbladh@...finetworks.com>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next 2/7] arm64: bpf: Fix off-by-one in tail call count limiting
Before, the eBPF JIT allowed up to MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT + 1 tail calls.
Now, precisely MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT is allowed, which is in line with the
behaviour of the interpreter. Verified with the test_bpf test suite
on qemu-system-aarch64.
Signed-off-by: Johan Almbladh <johan.almbladh@...finetworks.com>
---
arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
index 41c23f474ea6..cda53e33bbec 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
@@ -286,11 +286,11 @@ static int emit_bpf_tail_call(struct jit_ctx *ctx)
emit(A64_CMP(0, r3, tmp), ctx);
emit(A64_B_(A64_COND_CS, jmp_offset), ctx);
- /* if (tail_call_cnt > MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT)
+ /* if (tail_call_cnt >= MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT)
* goto out;
* tail_call_cnt++;
*/
- emit_a64_mov_i64(tmp, MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT, ctx);
+ emit_a64_mov_i64(tmp, MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT - 1, ctx);
emit(A64_CMP(1, tcc, tmp), ctx);
emit(A64_B_(A64_COND_HI, jmp_offset), ctx);
emit(A64_ADD_I(1, tcc, tcc, 1), ctx);
--
2.25.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists