| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAM1=_QT7pZZX73kne7xgFvfg1v2jTSry68P-RWPLZuRjyvnqog@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2021 13:31:33 +0100
From: Johan Almbladh <johan.almbladh@...finetworks.com>
To: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@...ngson.cn>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Xuefeng Li <lixuefeng@...ngson.cn>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
Shubham Bansal <illusionist.neo@...il.com>,
Zi Shen Lim <zlim.lnx@...il.com>, naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com,
Luke Nelson <luke.r.nels@...il.com>,
Xi Wang <xi.wang@...il.com>, bjorn@...nel.org,
Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@...ux.ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>, udknight@...il.com,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5] bpf: Change value of MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT from
32 to 33
On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 2:50 AM Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@...ngson.cn> wrote:
>
> In the current code, the actual max tail call count is 33 which is greater
> than MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT (defined as 32), the actual limit is not consistent
> with the meaning of MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT, there is some confusion and need to
> spend some time to think about the reason at the first glance.
>
> We can see the historical evolution from commit 04fd61ab36ec ("bpf: allow
> bpf programs to tail-call other bpf programs") and commit f9dabe016b63
> ("bpf: Undo off-by-one in interpreter tail call count limit").
>
> In order to avoid changing existing behavior, the actual limit is 33 now,
> this is reasonable.
>
> After commit 874be05f525e ("bpf, tests: Add tail call test suite"), we can
> see there exists failed testcase.
>
> On all archs when CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON is not set:
> # echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable
> # modprobe test_bpf
> # dmesg | grep -w FAIL
> Tail call error path, max count reached jited:0 ret 34 != 33 FAIL
>
> On some archs:
> # echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable
> # modprobe test_bpf
> # dmesg | grep -w FAIL
> Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 ret 34 != 33 FAIL
>
> Although the above failed testcase has been fixed in commit 18935a72eb25
> ("bpf/tests: Fix error in tail call limit tests"), it is still necessary
> to change the value of MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT from 32 to 33 to make the code
> more readable, then do some small changes of the related code.
>
> With this patch, it does not change the current limit 33, MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT
> can reflect the actual max tail call count, the related tailcall testcases
> in test_bpf and selftests can work well for the interpreter and the JIT.
>
> Here are the test results on x86_64:
>
> # uname -m
> x86_64
> # echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable
> # modprobe test_bpf test_suite=test_tail_calls
> # dmesg | tail -1
> test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 8 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [0/8 JIT'ed]
> # rmmod test_bpf
> # echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable
> # modprobe test_bpf test_suite=test_tail_calls
> # dmesg | tail -1
> test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 8 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [8/8 JIT'ed]
> # rmmod test_bpf
> # ./test_progs -t tailcalls
> #142 tailcalls:OK
> Summary: 1/11 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
>
> Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@...ngson.cn>
> Acked-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn@...nel.org>
I have run the tail call test suite of test_bpf.ko in QEMU with JITs
for x86, x86-64, mips, mipsel, mips64, mips64el, arm, arm64, s390x,
powerpc, powerpc64 and sparc64, i.e. all JITs in this patch except
RISC-V.
Tested-by: Johan Almbladh <johan.almbladh@...finetworks.com>
> ---
>
> v5: Use RV_REG_TCC directly to save one move for RISC-V,
> suggested by Björn Töpel, thank you.
>
> v4: Use >= as check condition,
> suggested by Daniel Borkmann, thank you.
>
> arch/arm/net/bpf_jit_32.c | 5 +++--
> arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 5 +++--
> arch/mips/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c | 2 +-
> arch/mips/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c | 2 +-
> arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c | 4 ++--
> arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c | 4 ++--
> arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c | 6 ++----
> arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c | 7 +++----
> arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 6 +++---
> arch/sparc/net/bpf_jit_comp_64.c | 2 +-
> arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 10 +++++-----
> arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c | 4 ++--
> include/linux/bpf.h | 2 +-
> include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 2 +-
> kernel/bpf/core.c | 3 ++-
> lib/test_bpf.c | 4 ++--
> tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 2 +-
> 17 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/net/bpf_jit_32.c b/arch/arm/net/bpf_jit_32.c
> index eeb6dc0..e59b41e 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/net/bpf_jit_32.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/net/bpf_jit_32.c
> @@ -1199,7 +1199,8 @@ static int emit_bpf_tail_call(struct jit_ctx *ctx)
>
> /* tmp2[0] = array, tmp2[1] = index */
>
> - /* if (tail_call_cnt > MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT)
> + /*
> + * if (tail_call_cnt >= MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT)
> * goto out;
> * tail_call_cnt++;
> */
> @@ -1208,7 +1209,7 @@ static int emit_bpf_tail_call(struct jit_ctx *ctx)
> tc = arm_bpf_get_reg64(tcc, tmp, ctx);
> emit(ARM_CMP_I(tc[0], hi), ctx);
> _emit(ARM_COND_EQ, ARM_CMP_I(tc[1], lo), ctx);
> - _emit(ARM_COND_HI, ARM_B(jmp_offset), ctx);
> + _emit(ARM_COND_CS, ARM_B(jmp_offset), ctx);
> emit(ARM_ADDS_I(tc[1], tc[1], 1), ctx);
> emit(ARM_ADC_I(tc[0], tc[0], 0), ctx);
> arm_bpf_put_reg64(tcc, tmp, ctx);
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> index 3a8a714..356fb21 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> @@ -287,13 +287,14 @@ 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_CMP(1, tcc, tmp), ctx);
> - emit(A64_B_(A64_COND_HI, jmp_offset), ctx);
> + emit(A64_B_(A64_COND_CS, jmp_offset), ctx);
> emit(A64_ADD_I(1, tcc, tcc, 1), ctx);
>
> /* prog = array->ptrs[index];
> diff --git a/arch/mips/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c b/arch/mips/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c
> index bd996ed..a7b424f 100644
> --- a/arch/mips/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c
> +++ b/arch/mips/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c
> @@ -1382,7 +1382,7 @@ void build_prologue(struct jit_context *ctx)
> * calling function jumps into the prologue after these instructions.
> */
> emit(ctx, ori, MIPS_R_T9, MIPS_R_ZERO,
> - min(MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT + 1, 0xffff));
> + min(MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT, 0xffff));
> emit(ctx, sw, MIPS_R_T9, 0, MIPS_R_SP);
Good, this is the intended way to adjust the tail call limit to 33 for
the MIPS JITs.
>
> /*
> diff --git a/arch/mips/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c b/arch/mips/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> index 815ade7..5ef8778 100644
> --- a/arch/mips/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> +++ b/arch/mips/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> @@ -552,7 +552,7 @@ void build_prologue(struct jit_context *ctx)
> * On a tail call, the calling function jumps into the prologue
> * after this instruction.
> */
> - emit(ctx, addiu, tc, MIPS_R_ZERO, min(MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT + 1, 0xffff));
> + emit(ctx, addiu, tc, MIPS_R_ZERO, min(MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT, 0xffff));
One minor thing that I would like to fix here. Please change the above
to use "ori" instead of "addiu" so it is consistent with the 32-bit
JIT:
emit(ctx, ori, tc, MIPS_R_ZERO, min(MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT, 0xffff));
For MIPS, with this change:
Acked-by: Johan Almbladh <johan.almbladh@...finetworks.com>
>
> /* === Entry-point for tail calls === */
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c
> index 0da31d4..8a4faa0 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c
> @@ -221,13 +221,13 @@ static int bpf_jit_emit_tail_call(u32 *image, struct codegen_context *ctx, u32 o
> PPC_BCC(COND_GE, out);
>
> /*
> - * if (tail_call_cnt > MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT)
> + * if (tail_call_cnt >= MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT)
> * goto out;
> */
> EMIT(PPC_RAW_CMPLWI(_R0, MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT));
> /* tail_call_cnt++; */
> EMIT(PPC_RAW_ADDIC(_R0, _R0, 1));
> - PPC_BCC(COND_GT, out);
> + PPC_BCC(COND_GE, out);
>
> /* prog = array->ptrs[index]; */
> EMIT(PPC_RAW_RLWINM(_R3, b2p_index, 2, 0, 29));
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> index 8b5157c..8571aaf 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> @@ -228,12 +228,12 @@ static int bpf_jit_emit_tail_call(u32 *image, struct codegen_context *ctx, u32 o
> PPC_BCC(COND_GE, out);
>
> /*
> - * if (tail_call_cnt > MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT)
> + * if (tail_call_cnt >= MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT)
> * goto out;
> */
> PPC_BPF_LL(b2p[TMP_REG_1], 1, bpf_jit_stack_tailcallcnt(ctx));
> EMIT(PPC_RAW_CMPLWI(b2p[TMP_REG_1], MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT));
> - PPC_BCC(COND_GT, out);
> + PPC_BCC(COND_GE, out);
>
> /*
> * tail_call_cnt++;
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c
> index e649742..529a83b 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c
> @@ -799,11 +799,10 @@ static int emit_bpf_tail_call(int insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
> emit_bcc(BPF_JGE, lo(idx_reg), RV_REG_T1, off, ctx);
>
> /*
> - * temp_tcc = tcc - 1;
> - * if (tcc < 0)
> + * if (--tcc < 0)
> * goto out;
> */
> - emit(rv_addi(RV_REG_T1, RV_REG_TCC, -1), ctx);
> + emit(rv_addi(RV_REG_TCC, RV_REG_TCC, -1), ctx);
> off = ninsns_rvoff(tc_ninsn - (ctx->ninsns - start_insn));
> emit_bcc(BPF_JSLT, RV_REG_TCC, RV_REG_ZERO, off, ctx);
>
> @@ -829,7 +828,6 @@ static int emit_bpf_tail_call(int insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
> if (is_12b_check(off, insn))
> return -1;
> emit(rv_lw(RV_REG_T0, off, RV_REG_T0), ctx);
> - emit(rv_addi(RV_REG_TCC, RV_REG_T1, 0), ctx);
> /* Epilogue jumps to *(t0 + 4). */
> __build_epilogue(true, ctx);
> return 0;
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> index 2ca345c..f4466b7 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> @@ -327,12 +327,12 @@ static int emit_bpf_tail_call(int insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
> off = ninsns_rvoff(tc_ninsn - (ctx->ninsns - start_insn));
> emit_branch(BPF_JGE, RV_REG_A2, RV_REG_T1, off, ctx);
>
> - /* if (TCC-- < 0)
> + /* if (--TCC < 0)
> * goto out;
> */
> - emit_addi(RV_REG_T1, tcc, -1, ctx);
> + emit_addi(RV_REG_TCC, tcc, -1, ctx);
> off = ninsns_rvoff(tc_ninsn - (ctx->ninsns - start_insn));
> - emit_branch(BPF_JSLT, tcc, RV_REG_ZERO, off, ctx);
> + emit_branch(BPF_JSLT, RV_REG_TCC, RV_REG_ZERO, off, ctx);
>
> /* prog = array->ptrs[index];
> * if (!prog)
> @@ -352,7 +352,6 @@ static int emit_bpf_tail_call(int insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
> if (is_12b_check(off, insn))
> return -1;
> emit_ld(RV_REG_T3, off, RV_REG_T2, ctx);
> - emit_mv(RV_REG_TCC, RV_REG_T1, ctx);
> __build_epilogue(true, ctx);
> return 0;
> }
> diff --git a/arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> index 1a374d0..3553cfc 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> @@ -1369,7 +1369,7 @@ static noinline int bpf_jit_insn(struct bpf_jit *jit, struct bpf_prog *fp,
> jit->prg);
>
> /*
> - * if (tail_call_cnt++ > MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT)
> + * if (tail_call_cnt++ >= MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT)
> * goto out;
> */
>
> @@ -1381,9 +1381,9 @@ static noinline int bpf_jit_insn(struct bpf_jit *jit, struct bpf_prog *fp,
> EMIT4_IMM(0xa7080000, REG_W0, 1);
> /* laal %w1,%w0,off(%r15) */
> EMIT6_DISP_LH(0xeb000000, 0x00fa, REG_W1, REG_W0, REG_15, off);
> - /* clij %w1,MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT,0x2,out */
> + /* clij %w1,MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT-1,0x2,out */
> patch_2_clij = jit->prg;
> - EMIT6_PCREL_RIEC(0xec000000, 0x007f, REG_W1, MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT,
> + EMIT6_PCREL_RIEC(0xec000000, 0x007f, REG_W1, MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT - 1,
> 2, jit->prg);
>
> /*
> diff --git a/arch/sparc/net/bpf_jit_comp_64.c b/arch/sparc/net/bpf_jit_comp_64.c
> index 9a2f20c..0bfe1c7 100644
> --- a/arch/sparc/net/bpf_jit_comp_64.c
> +++ b/arch/sparc/net/bpf_jit_comp_64.c
> @@ -867,7 +867,7 @@ static void emit_tail_call(struct jit_ctx *ctx)
> emit(LD32 | IMMED | RS1(SP) | S13(off) | RD(tmp), ctx);
> emit_cmpi(tmp, MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT, ctx);
> #define OFFSET2 13
> - emit_branch(BGU, ctx->idx, ctx->idx + OFFSET2, ctx);
> + emit_branch(BGEU, ctx->idx, ctx->idx + OFFSET2, ctx);
> emit_nop(ctx);
>
> emit_alu_K(ADD, tmp, 1, ctx);
> diff --git a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> index 726700f..6318479 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> @@ -412,7 +412,7 @@ static void emit_indirect_jump(u8 **pprog, int reg, u8 *ip)
> * ... bpf_tail_call(void *ctx, struct bpf_array *array, u64 index) ...
> * if (index >= array->map.max_entries)
> * goto out;
> - * if (++tail_call_cnt > MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT)
> + * if (tail_call_cnt++ >= MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT)
> * goto out;
> * prog = array->ptrs[index];
> * if (prog == NULL)
> @@ -446,14 +446,14 @@ static void emit_bpf_tail_call_indirect(u8 **pprog, bool *callee_regs_used,
> EMIT2(X86_JBE, offset); /* jbe out */
>
> /*
> - * if (tail_call_cnt > MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT)
> + * if (tail_call_cnt++ >= MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT)
> * goto out;
> */
> EMIT2_off32(0x8B, 0x85, tcc_off); /* mov eax, dword ptr [rbp - tcc_off] */
> EMIT3(0x83, 0xF8, MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT); /* cmp eax, MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT */
>
> offset = ctx->tail_call_indirect_label - (prog + 2 - start);
> - EMIT2(X86_JA, offset); /* ja out */
> + EMIT2(X86_JAE, offset); /* jae out */
> EMIT3(0x83, 0xC0, 0x01); /* add eax, 1 */
> EMIT2_off32(0x89, 0x85, tcc_off); /* mov dword ptr [rbp - tcc_off], eax */
>
> @@ -504,14 +504,14 @@ static void emit_bpf_tail_call_direct(struct bpf_jit_poke_descriptor *poke,
> int offset;
>
> /*
> - * if (tail_call_cnt > MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT)
> + * if (tail_call_cnt++ >= MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT)
> * goto out;
> */
> EMIT2_off32(0x8B, 0x85, tcc_off); /* mov eax, dword ptr [rbp - tcc_off] */
> EMIT3(0x83, 0xF8, MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT); /* cmp eax, MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT */
>
> offset = ctx->tail_call_direct_label - (prog + 2 - start);
> - EMIT2(X86_JA, offset); /* ja out */
> + EMIT2(X86_JAE, offset); /* jae out */
> EMIT3(0x83, 0xC0, 0x01); /* add eax, 1 */
> EMIT2_off32(0x89, 0x85, tcc_off); /* mov dword ptr [rbp - tcc_off], eax */
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c
> index da9b7cf..429a89c 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c
> @@ -1323,7 +1323,7 @@ static void emit_bpf_tail_call(u8 **pprog, u8 *ip)
> EMIT2(IA32_JBE, jmp_label(jmp_label1, 2));
>
> /*
> - * if (tail_call_cnt > MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT)
> + * if (tail_call_cnt++ >= MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT)
> * goto out;
> */
> lo = (u32)MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT;
> @@ -1337,7 +1337,7 @@ static void emit_bpf_tail_call(u8 **pprog, u8 *ip)
> /* cmp ecx,lo */
> EMIT3(0x83, add_1reg(0xF8, IA32_ECX), lo);
>
> - /* ja out */
> + /* jae out */
> EMIT2(IA32_JAE, jmp_label(jmp_label1, 2));
>
> /* add eax,0x1 */
So the 32-bit x86 JIT was still using a limit of 32.
For the other implementations, the patch is a non-functional change.
Here, the patch corrects the comments AND corrects the behaviour as
the constant MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT updated. The 32-bit x86 is now aligned
to 33 as well. I think this deserves being mentioned in the commit
message too.
> diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
> index 2be6dfd..4bce7ee 100644
> --- a/include/linux/bpf.h
> +++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
> @@ -1075,7 +1075,7 @@ struct bpf_array {
> };
>
> #define BPF_COMPLEXITY_LIMIT_INSNS 1000000 /* yes. 1M insns */
> -#define MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT 32
> +#define MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT 33
>
> #define BPF_F_ACCESS_MASK (BPF_F_RDONLY | \
> BPF_F_RDONLY_PROG | \
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> index ba5af15..b12cfce 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> @@ -1744,7 +1744,7 @@ union bpf_attr {
> * if the maximum number of tail calls has been reached for this
> * chain of programs. This limit is defined in the kernel by the
> * macro **MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT** (not accessible to user space),
> - * which is currently set to 32.
> + * which is currently set to 33.
> * Return
> * 0 on success, or a negative error in case of failure.
> *
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c
> index 327e399..870881d 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c
> @@ -1567,7 +1567,8 @@ static u64 ___bpf_prog_run(u64 *regs, const struct bpf_insn *insn)
>
> if (unlikely(index >= array->map.max_entries))
> goto out;
> - if (unlikely(tail_call_cnt > MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT))
> +
> + if (unlikely(tail_call_cnt >= MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT))
> goto out;
>
> tail_call_cnt++;
> diff --git a/lib/test_bpf.c b/lib/test_bpf.c
> index adae395..0c5cb2d 100644
> --- a/lib/test_bpf.c
> +++ b/lib/test_bpf.c
> @@ -14683,7 +14683,7 @@ static struct tail_call_test tail_call_tests[] = {
> BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> },
> .flags = FLAG_NEED_STATE | FLAG_RESULT_IN_STATE,
> - .result = (MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT + 1 + 1) * MAX_TESTRUNS,
> + .result = (MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT + 1) * MAX_TESTRUNS,
> },
> {
> "Tail call count preserved across function calls",
> @@ -14705,7 +14705,7 @@ static struct tail_call_test tail_call_tests[] = {
> },
> .stack_depth = 8,
> .flags = FLAG_NEED_STATE | FLAG_RESULT_IN_STATE,
> - .result = (MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT + 1 + 1) * MAX_TESTRUNS,
> + .result = (MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT + 1) * MAX_TESTRUNS,
> },
> {
> "Tail call error path, NULL target",
> diff --git a/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> index ba5af15..b12cfce 100644
> --- a/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> +++ b/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> @@ -1744,7 +1744,7 @@ union bpf_attr {
> * if the maximum number of tail calls has been reached for this
> * chain of programs. This limit is defined in the kernel by the
> * macro **MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT** (not accessible to user space),
> - * which is currently set to 32.
> + * which is currently set to 33.
> * Return
> * 0 on success, or a negative error in case of failure.
> *
> --
> 2.1.0
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists