Re: [PATCH net-next 2/4] x86: bpf_jit: implement bpf_tail_call() helper

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On 5/20/15 9:05 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > What causes the stack pointer to be right?  Is there some reason that
> > > the stack pointer is the same no matter where you are in the generated
> > > code?
> >
> >
> > that's why I said 'it's _roughly_ expressed in C' this way.
> > Stack pointer doesn't change. It uses the same stack frame.
>
> I think the more relevant point is that (I think) eBPF never changes
> the stack pointer after the prologue (i.e. the stack depth is truly
> constant).

ahh, that's what you were referring to.
Yes, there is no alloca(). stack cannot grow and always fixed.
That's critical for safety verification.
On a JIT side though, x64 has ugly div/mod, so JIT is doing
push/pop rax/rdx to compile 'dst_reg /= src_reg' bpf insn.
But that doesn't change 'same stack depth' rule at the time
of bpf_tail_call.
Note, s390 JIT can generate different prologue/epilogue
for every program, so it will likely be doing stack unwind
and jump. Like I was doing in my tail_call_v2 version of x64 jit:
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/ast/bpf.git/diff/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c?h=tail_call_v2&id=bfd60c3135c8f010a6497dfc5e7d3070e26ca4d1

In case of interrupt happens sometime during this jumping process
it's also fine. no-red-zone business is very dear to my heart :)
I always keep it in mind when doing assembler/jit changes.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/