Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] bpf: allow bpf programs to tail-call other bpf programs

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Alexei Starovoitov [off-list ref] wrote:

introduce bpf_tail_call(ctx, &jmp_table, index) helper function
which can be used from BPF programs like:
int bpf_prog(struct pt_regs *ctx)
{
  ...
  bpf_tail_call(ctx, &jmp_table, index);
  ...
}
that is roughly equivalent to:
int bpf_prog(struct pt_regs *ctx)
{
  ...
  if (jmp_table[index])
    return (*jmp_table[index])(ctx);
  ...
}
The important detail that it's not a normal call, but a tail call.
The kernel stack is precious, so this helper reuses the current
stack frame and jumps into another BPF program without adding
extra call frame.
It's trivially done in interpreter and a bit trickier in JITs.
In case of x64 JIT the bigger part of generated assembler prologue
is common for all programs, so it is simply skipped while jumping.
Other JITs can do similar prologue-skipping optimization or
do stack unwind before jumping into the next program.

bpf_tail_call() arguments:
ctx - context pointer
jmp_table - one of BPF_MAP_TYPE_PROG_ARRAY maps used as the jump table
index - index in the jump table

Since all BPF programs are idenitified by file descriptor, user space
need to populate the jmp_table with FDs of other BPF programs.
If jmp_table[index] is empty the bpf_tail_call() doesn't jump anywhere
and program execution continues as normal.

New BPF_MAP_TYPE_PROG_ARRAY map type is introduced so that user space can
populate this jmp_table array with FDs of other bpf programs.
Programs can share the same jmp_table array or use multiple jmp_tables.

The chain of tail calls can form unpredictable dynamic loops therefore
tail_call_cnt is used to limit the number of calls and currently is set to 32.

IMO this is starting to get a bit ugly.  Would it be possible to have
the program dereference the subprogram reference itself from the jump
table?  There would have to be a verifier type that represents a
reference to a program tail-call entry point, but that seems better
than having this weird indirection.

--Andy