On 11/06/22 11:04 pm, Christophe Leroy wrote:
Le 10/06/2022 à 17:55, Hari Bathini a écrit :This adds two atomic opcodes BPF_XCHG and BPF_CMPXCHG on ppc32, both of which include the BPF_FETCH flag. The kernel's atomic_cmpxchg operation fundamentally has 3 operands, but we only have two register fields. Therefore the operand we compare against (the kernel's API calls it 'old') is hard-coded to be BPF_REG_R0. Also, kernel's atomic_cmpxchg returns the previous value at dst_reg + off. JIT the same for BPF too with return value put in BPF_REG_0. BPF_REG_R0 = atomic_cmpxchg(dst_reg + off, BPF_REG_R0, src_reg); Signed-off-by: Hari Bathini <hbath...@linux.ibm.com> --- Changes in v2: * Moved variable declaration to avoid late declaration error on some compilers. * Tried to make code readable and compact. arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c index 28dc6a1a8f2f..43f1c76d48ce 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c +++ b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c @@ -297,6 +297,7 @@ int bpf_jit_build_body(struct bpf_prog *fp, u32 *image, struct codegen_context * u32 ax_reg = bpf_to_ppc(BPF_REG_AX); u32 tmp_reg = bpf_to_ppc(TMP_REG); u32 size = BPF_SIZE(code); + u32 save_reg, ret_reg; s16 off = insn[i].off; s32 imm = insn[i].imm; bool func_addr_fixed; @@ -799,6 +800,9 @@ int bpf_jit_build_body(struct bpf_prog *fp, u32 *image, struct codegen_context * * BPF_STX ATOMIC (atomic ops) */ case BPF_STX | BPF_ATOMIC | BPF_W: + save_reg = _R0; + ret_reg = src_reg; + bpf_set_seen_register(ctx, tmp_reg); bpf_set_seen_register(ctx, ax_reg);@@ -829,6 +833,21 @@ int bpf_jit_build_body(struct bpf_prog *fp, u32 *image, struct codegen_context *case BPF_XOR | BPF_FETCH: EMIT(PPC_RAW_XOR(_R0, _R0, src_reg)); break; + case BPF_CMPXCHG: + /* + * Return old value in BPF_REG_0 for BPF_CMPXCHG & + * in src_reg for other cases. + */ + ret_reg = bpf_to_ppc(BPF_REG_0); + + /* Compare with old value in BPF_REG_0 */ + EMIT(PPC_RAW_CMPW(bpf_to_ppc(BPF_REG_0), _R0)); + /* Don't set if different from old value */ + PPC_BCC_SHORT(COND_NE, (ctx->idx + 3) * 4); + fallthrough; + case BPF_XCHG: + save_reg = src_reg;I'm a bit lost, when save_reg is src_reg, don't we expect the upper part (ie src_reg - 1) to be explicitely zeroised ?
For BPF_FETCH variants, old value is returned in src_reg (ret_reg). In all such cases, higher 32-bit is zero'ed. But in case of BPF_CMPXCHG, src_reg is untouched as BPF_REG_0 is used instead. So, higher 32-bit remains untouched for that case alone..
+ break; default: pr_err_ratelimited("eBPF filter atomic op code %02x (@%d) unsupported\n", code, i); @@ -836,15 +855,15 @@ int bpf_jit_build_body(struct bpf_prog *fp, u32 *image, struct codegen_context * }/* store new value */- EMIT(PPC_RAW_STWCX(_R0, tmp_reg, dst_reg)); + EMIT(PPC_RAW_STWCX(save_reg, tmp_reg, dst_reg)); /* we're done if this succeeded */ PPC_BCC_SHORT(COND_NE, tmp_idx);
/* For the BPF_FETCH variant, get old data into src_reg */
With this commit, this comment is not true for BPF_CMPXCHG. So, this comment should not be removed.. Thanks Hari
