bpf: Fix s16 truncation for large bpf-to-bpf call offsets

Currently, the BPF instruction set allows bpf-to-bpf calls (or internal calls, pseudo calls) to use a 32-bit imm field to represent the relative jump offset. However, when JIT is disabled or falls back to the interpreter, the verifier invokes bpf_patch_call_args() to rewrite the call instruction. In this function, the 32-bit imm is downcast to s16 and stored in the off field. void bpf_patch_call_args(struct bpf_insn *insn, u32 stack_depth) { stack_depth = max_t(u32, stack_depth, 1); insn->off = (s16) insn->imm; insn->imm = interpreters_args[(round_up(stack_depth, 32) / 32) - 1] - __bpf_call_base_args; insn->code = BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL_ARGS; } If the original imm exceeds the s16 range (i.e., a jump offset greater than 32767 instructions), this downcast silently truncates the offset, resulting in an incorrect call target. Fix this by: 1. In bpf_patch_call_args(), keeping the imm field unchanged and using the off field to store the index of the interpreter function. 2. In ___bpf_prog_run() for the JMP_CALL_ARGS case, retrieving the interpreter function pointer from the interpreters_args array using the off field as the index, and passing the original imm to calculate the last argument of the interpreter function. After these changes, the truncation issue is resolved, and __bpf_call_base_args is also no longer needed and can be removed, which makes the code cleaner. Performance: In ___bpf_prog_run() for the JMP_CALL_ARGS case, changing the retrieval of the interpreter function pointer from pointer addition to direct array indexing improves performance. The possible reason is that the latter has better instruction-level parallelism. See the v5 discussion [1] for more details. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/f120c3c4-6999-414a-b514-518bb64b4758@zju.edu.cn/ To avoid requiring bpftool changes, keep the new imm/off encoding internal and restore the legacy xlated dump layout in bpf_insn_prepare_dump(). For bpf-to-bpf call offsets that do not fit in s16, export off as 0 instead of a truncated and misleading value.

YTYazhou Tang committed 6 months ago