bpf: Change value of MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT from 32 to 33

In the current code, the actual max tail call count is 33 which is greater
than MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT (defined as 32). The actual limit is not consistent
with the meaning of MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT and thus confusing at first glance.
We can see the historical evolution from commit 04fd61ab36ec ("bpf: allow
bpf programs to tail-call other bpf programs") and commit f9dabe016b63
("bpf: Undo off-by-one in interpreter tail call count limit"). In order
to avoid changing existing behavior, the actual limit is 33 now, this is
reasonable.

After commit 874be05f525e ("bpf, tests: Add tail call test suite"), we can
see there exists failed testcase.

On all archs when CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON is not set:
 # echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable
 # modprobe test_bpf
 # dmesg | grep -w FAIL
 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:0 ret 34 != 33 FAIL

On some archs:
 # echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable
 # modprobe test_bpf
 # dmesg | grep -w FAIL
 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 ret 34 != 33 FAIL

Although the above failed testcase has been fixed in commit 18935a72eb25
("bpf/tests: Fix error in tail call limit tests"), it would still be good
to change the value of MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT from 32 to 33 to make the code
more readable.

The 32-bit x86 JIT was using a limit of 32, just fix the wrong comments and
limit to 33 tail calls as the constant MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT updated. For the
mips64 JIT, use "ori" instead of "addiu" as suggested by Johan Almbladh.
For the riscv JIT, use RV_REG_TCC directly to save one register move as
suggested by Björn Töpel. For the other implementations, no function changes,
it does not change the current limit 33, the new value of MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT
can reflect the actual max tail call count, the related tail call testcases
in test_bpf module and selftests can work well for the interpreter and the
JIT.

Here are the test results on x86_64:

 # uname -m
 x86_64
 # echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable
 # modprobe test_bpf test_suite=test_tail_calls
 # dmesg | tail -1
 test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 8 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [0/8 JIT'ed]
 # rmmod test_bpf
 # echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable
 # modprobe test_bpf test_suite=test_tail_calls
 # dmesg | tail -1
 test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 8 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [8/8 JIT'ed]
 # rmmod test_bpf
 # ./test_progs -t tailcalls
 #142 tailcalls:OK
 Summary: 1/11 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED

Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Tested-by: Johan Almbladh <johan.almbladh@anyfinetworks.com>
Tested-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Johan Almbladh <johan.almbladh@anyfinetworks.com>
Acked-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/1636075800-3264-1-git-send-email-yangtiezhu@loongson.cn

1 files changed, 3 insertions, 3 deletions

diff --git a/arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
index 233cc9bcd652..9ff2bd83aad7 100644
--- a/arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
+++ b/arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
@@ -1369,7 +1369,7 @@ static noinline int bpf_jit_insn(struct bpf_jit *jit, struct bpf_prog *fp,
 				 jit->prg);
 
 		/*
-		 * if (tail_call_cnt++ > MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT)
+		 * if (tail_call_cnt++ >= MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT)
 		 *         goto out;
 		 */
 
@@ -1381,9 +1381,9 @@ static noinline int bpf_jit_insn(struct bpf_jit *jit, struct bpf_prog *fp,
 		EMIT4_IMM(0xa7080000, REG_W0, 1);
 		/* laal %w1,%w0,off(%r15) */
 		EMIT6_DISP_LH(0xeb000000, 0x00fa, REG_W1, REG_W0, REG_15, off);
-		/* clij %w1,MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT,0x2,out */
+		/* clij %w1,MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT-1,0x2,out */
 		patch_2_clij = jit->prg;
-		EMIT6_PCREL_RIEC(0xec000000, 0x007f, REG_W1, MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT,
+		EMIT6_PCREL_RIEC(0xec000000, 0x007f, REG_W1, MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT - 1,
 				 2, jit->prg);
 
 		/*