[PATCH bpf-next v6 6/7] riscv, bpf: Mixing bpf2bpf and tailcalls

[Daniel Borkmann]

On 7/10/26 2:53 AM, Pu Lehui wrote:
> On 2026/7/10 3:51, Björn Töpel wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Jul 2026 at 17:09, Pu Lehui <pulehui at huaweicloud.com> wrote:
>>> On 2026/7/9 19:37, Björn Töpel wrote:
>>>> Sorry for the delay here -- the bot had me thinking a bit.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 8 Jul 2026 at 10:54, Pu Lehui <pulehui at huaweicloud.com> wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>> This assumes a fixed number of instructions before the tailcall entry
>>>>>> point. When is_subprog is true, the rv_addi() instruction is not emitted,
>>>>>> which means the tailcall entry point moves forward by 4 bytes relative to
>>>>>> where RV_TAILCALL_OFFSET expects it to be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The tailcall entry is used in emit_bpf_tail_call() when calculating the
>>>>>> jump target for the tail call. If RV_TAILCALL_OFFSET doesn't account for
>>>>>> the conditional emission, could this cause the wrong entry point to be
>>>>>> used when tail calling into subprograms?
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not an issue, subprog can not be the tailcall callee.
>>>>
>>>> Say, that we have an entry function that does bpf_for_each_map_array()
>>>> into a callback cb(). cb() is a subprogram, so no init of TCC. Now,
>>>> cb() calls another subprogram that does a tailcall.
>>>>
>>>> The callback to cb() is coming from the kernel, so a6 could have been
>>>> clobbered, no? We're entering a subprogram coming from the C ABI. Now,
>>>> if the callback calls a subprog that's tail-call reachable, the TCC
>>>> can be garbage?
>>>
>>> Sashiko reported the same issue yesterday. I verified that the verifier
>>> rejects cases where a tail call is invoked within a callback;
>>> specifically, while the callback's return value range is [0, 1], the
>>> simulation of the exit path in `check_helper_call` (handling the tail
>>> call helper) marks R0 as UNKNOWN, causing the verifier to reject it—so I
>>> didn't investigate further. However, I just verified that the verifier
>>> *does* accept the scenario where a callback calls a subprogram, and that
>>> subprogram subsequently calls a tail call. I believe this scenario ought
>>> to be rejected; perhaps some changes are needed in the verifier,
>>> otherwise tail calls on other architectures (like x86) would also be
>>> susceptible to infinite loop issues.
>>
>> Thanks for trying it out!
>>
>> Ok, so seems like we need a verifier fix pre-landing?
> 
> make sense to me, will try it.

Thanks, yes, please take a stab at crafting a verifier fix + BPF selftest
and let us know if you are stuck somewhere.