Skip to content
Commit 5bbb9e1f authored by Alexei Starovoitov's avatar Alexei Starovoitov
Browse files

Merge branch 'bpf-x64-fix-tailcall-infinite-loop'

Leon Hwang says:

====================
bpf, x64: Fix tailcall infinite loop

This patch series fixes a tailcall infinite loop on x64.

From commit ebf7d1f5 ("bpf, x64: rework pro/epilogue and tailcall
handling in JIT"), the tailcall on x64 works better than before.

From commit e411901c ("bpf: allow for tailcalls in BPF subprograms
for x64 JIT"), tailcall is able to run in BPF subprograms on x64.

From commit 5b92a28a ("bpf: Support attaching tracing BPF program
to other BPF programs"), BPF program is able to trace other BPF programs.

How about combining them all together?

1. FENTRY/FEXIT on a BPF subprogram.
2. A tailcall runs in the BPF subprogram.
3. The tailcall calls the subprogram's caller.

As a result, a tailcall infinite loop comes up. And the loop would halt
the machine.

As we know, in tail call context, the tail_call_cnt propagates by stack
and rax register between BPF subprograms. So do in trampolines.

How did I discover the bug?

From commit 7f6e4312 ("bpf: Limit caller's stack depth 256 for
subprogs with tailcalls"), the total stack size limits to around 8KiB.
Then, I write some bpf progs to validate the stack consuming, that are
tailcalls running in bpf2bpf and FENTRY/FEXIT tracing on bpf2bpf.

At that time, accidently, I made a tailcall loop. And then the loop halted
my VM. Without the loop, the bpf progs would consume over 8KiB stack size.
But the _stack-overflow_ did not halt my VM.

With bpf_printk(), I confirmed that the tailcall count limit did not work
expectedly. Next, read the code and fix it.

Thank Ilya Leoshkevich, this bug on s390x has been fixed.

Hopefully, this bug on arm64 will be fixed in near future.
====================

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230912150442.2009-1-hffilwlqm@gmail.com


Signed-off-by: default avatarAlexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
parents 96daa987 e13b5f2f
Loading
Loading
Loading
Loading
0% Loading or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment