Re: [PATCH v6 bpf-next 0/6] bpf: tailcalls in BPF subprograms

On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 03:03:19AM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:

On 7/31/20 2:03 AM, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:

quoted

v5->v6:
- propagate only those poke descriptors that individual subprogram is
   actually using (Daniel)
- drop the cumbersome check if poke desc got filled in map_poke_run()
- move poke->ip renaming in bpf_jit_add_poke_descriptor() from patch 4
   to patch 3 to provide bisectability (Daniel)

I did a basic test with Cilium on K8s with this set, spawning a few Pods
and checking connectivity & whether we're not crashing since it has bit more
elaborate tail call use. So far so good. I was inclined to push the series
out, but there is one more issue I noticed and didn't notice earlier when
reviewing, and that is overall stack size:

What happens when you create a single program that has nested BPF to BPF
calls e.g. either up to the maximum nesting or one call that is using up
the max stack size which is then doing another BPF to BPF call that contains
the tail call. In the tail call map, you have the same program in there.
This means we create a worst case stack from BPF size of max_stack_size *
max_tail_call_size, that is, 512*32. So that adds 16k worst case. For x86
we have a stack of arch/x86/include/asm/page_64_types.h:

  #define THREAD_SIZE_ORDER       (2 + KASAN_STACK_ORDER)
 #define THREAD_SIZE  (PAGE_SIZE << THREAD_SIZE_ORDER)

So we end up with 16k in a typical case. And this will cause kernel stack
overflow; I'm at least not seeing where we handle this situation in the
set. Hm, need to think more, but maybe this needs tracking of max stack
across tail calls to force an upper limit..

My knee jerk reaction would be to decrement the allowed max tail calls,
but not sure if it's an option and if it would help.

Otherwise I'm not sure how to pass around the stack size just like we're
doing it in this set with tail call counter that sits in %rax.

Thanks,
Daniel