On 2016/09/24 03:30AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 12:33:54AM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
On 09/23/2016 10:35 PM, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
Tail calls allow JIT'ed eBPF programs to call into other JIT'ed eBPF
programs. This can be achieved either by:
(1) retaining the stack setup by the first eBPF program and having all
subsequent eBPF programs re-using it, or,
(2) by unwinding/tearing down the stack and having each eBPF program
deal with its own stack as it sees fit.
To ensure that this does not create loops, there is a limit to how many
tail calls can be done (currently 32). This requires the JIT'ed code to
maintain a count of the number of tail calls done so far.
Approach (1) is simple, but requires every eBPF program to have (almost)
the same prologue/epilogue, regardless of whether they need it. This is
inefficient for small eBPF programs which may not sometimes need a
prologue at all. As such, to minimize impact of tail call
implementation, we use approach (2) here which needs each eBPF program
in the chain to use its own prologue/epilogue. This is not ideal when
many tail calls are involved and when all the eBPF programs in the chain
have similar prologue/epilogue. However, the impact is restricted to
programs that do tail calls. Individual eBPF programs are not affected.
We maintain the tail call count in a fixed location on the stack and
updated tail call count values are passed in through this. The very
first eBPF program in a chain sets this up to 0 (the first 2
instructions). Subsequent tail calls skip the first two eBPF JIT
instructions to maintain the count. For programs that don't do tail
calls themselves, the first two instructions are NOPs.
Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks for adding support, Naveen, that's really great! I think 2) seems
fine as well in this context as prologue size can vary quite a bit here,
and depending on program types likelihood of tail call usage as well (but
I wouldn't expect deep nesting). Thanks a lot!
Great stuff. In this circumstances approach 2 makes sense to me as well.
Thanks for the quick review!