Re: [PATCH bpf-next v7 2/5] bpf, x86: Create bpf_tramp_run_ctx on the caller thread's stack

[Kui-Feng Lee <kuifeng@fb.com>]

On Mon, 2022-05-09 at 14:04 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Sat, May 07, 2022 at 08:21:14PM -0700, Kui-Feng Lee wrote:
> >  
> > +       /* Prepare struct bpf_tramp_run_ctx.
> > +        * sub rsp, sizeof(struct bpf_tramp_run_ctx)
> > +        */
> > +       EMIT4(0x48, 0x83, 0xEC, sizeof(struct bpf_tramp_run_ctx));
> > +
> >         if (fentry->nr_links)
> >                 if (invoke_bpf(m, &prog, fentry, regs_off,
> >                                flags & BPF_TRAMP_F_RET_FENTRY_RET))
> > @@ -2098,6 +2121,11 @@ int arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline(struct
> > bpf_tramp_image *im, void *image, void *i
> >         }
> >  
> >         if (flags & BPF_TRAMP_F_CALL_ORIG) {
> > +               /* pop struct bpf_tramp_run_ctx
> > +                * add rsp, sizeof(struct bpf_tramp_run_ctx)
> > +                */
> > +               EMIT4(0x48, 0x83, 0xC4, sizeof(struct
> > bpf_tramp_run_ctx));
> > +
> >                 restore_regs(m, &prog, nr_args, regs_off);
> >  
> >                 /* call original function */
> > @@ -2110,6 +2138,11 @@ int arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline(struct
> > bpf_tramp_image *im, void *image, void *i
> >                 im->ip_after_call = prog;
> >                 memcpy(prog, x86_nops[5], X86_PATCH_SIZE);
> >                 prog += X86_PATCH_SIZE;
> > +
> > +               /* Prepare struct bpf_tramp_run_ctx.
> > +                * sub rsp, sizeof(struct bpf_tramp_run_ctx)
> > +                */
> > +               EMIT4(0x48, 0x83, 0xEC, sizeof(struct
> > bpf_tramp_run_ctx));
> >         }
> >  
> >         if (fmod_ret->nr_links) {
> > @@ -2133,6 +2166,11 @@ int arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline(struct
> > bpf_tramp_image *im, void *image, void *i
> >                         goto cleanup;
> >                 }
> >  
> > +       /* pop struct bpf_tramp_run_ctx
> > +        * add rsp, sizeof(struct bpf_tramp_run_ctx)
> > +        */
> > +       EMIT4(0x48, 0x83, 0xC4, sizeof(struct bpf_tramp_run_ctx));
> > +
> 
> What is the point of all of these additional sub/add rsp ?
> It seems unconditionally increasing stack_size by sizeof(struct
> bpf_tramp_run_ctx)
> will achieve the same and above 4 extra insns won't be needed.

I think you are right.