Thread (8 messages) 8 messages, 3 authors, 2018-05-02

Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/3] bpf: cleanups on managing subprog information

From: Jiong Wang <hidden>
Date: 2018-05-02 19:22:29

On 02/05/2018 18:24, John Fastabend wrote:
On 05/02/2018 09:59 AM, Jiong Wang wrote:
quoted
On 01/05/2018 23:22, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
...
quoted
[   27.784931]  ? bpf_int_jit_compile+0x7ac/0xab0
[   27.785475]  bpf_int_jit_compile+0x2b6/0xab0
[   27.786001]  ? do_jit+0x6020/0x6020
[   27.786428]  ? kasan_kmalloc+0xa0/0xd0
[   27.786885]  bpf_check+0x2c05/0x4c40
[   27.787346]  ? fixup_bpf_calls+0x1140/0x1140
[   27.787865]  ? kasan_unpoison_shadow+0x30/0x40
[   27.788406]  ? kasan_kmalloc+0xa0/0xd0
[   27.788865]  ? memset+0x1f/0x40
[   27.789255]  ? bpf_obj_name_cpy+0x2d/0x200
[   27.789750]  bpf_prog_load+0xb07/0xeb0

simply running test_verifier with JIT and kasan on.
Ah, sorry, I should add "sysctl net/core/bpf_jit_enable=1" to my test
script, error reproduced.

convert_ctx_accesses and fixup_bpf_calls might insert ebpf insns that
prog->len would change.

The new fake "exit" subprog whose .start offset is prog->len should be
updated as well.

The "for" condition in adjust_subprog_starts:

   for (i = 0; i < env->subprog_cnt; i++) {

need to be changed into:

   for (i = 0; i <= env->subprog_cnt; i++) {

Will respin the patch set.

Thanks.

Regards,
Jiong
Also a bit of a nit, but if you are doing a respin. How about
consider renaming BPF_MAX_SUBPROGS -> BPF_MAX_PROGS. It will
make the naming more accurate and also avoid some diffs below
where changing '>=' to '>' is required.
I have been pondering renaming BPF_MAX_SUBPROGS to other name like
what you suggested, but failed to convince myself, mostly due to there
are quite a few other variables etc that are using the "subprog" name
convention, so I am thinking use subprog is also fine as traditional
main prog/func is also a sub prog/func, it is just the entry one.

So I am thinking it might be not worth renaming everything related, and
tend to just keep it as is.

Thanks.

Regards,
Jiong
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -191,7 +191,7 @@ struct bpf_verifier_env {
  	bool seen_direct_write;
  	struct bpf_insn_aux_data *insn_aux_data; /* array of per-insn state */
  	struct bpf_verifier_log log;
-	u32 subprog_starts[BPF_MAX_SUBPROGS];
+	u32 subprog_starts[BPF_MAX_SUBPROGS + 1];
  	/* computes the stack depth of each bpf function */
  	u16 subprog_stack_depth[BPF_MAX_SUBPROGS + 1];
  	u32 subprog_cnt;
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help