On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 7:10 PM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Just realized that we can go the other way instead.
>
> We can get rid of bpf_assert_eq/ne/... and replace with:
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_experimental.h
> b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_experimental.h
> index 1386baf9ae4a..1c500287766d 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_experimental.h
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_experimental.h
> @@ -254,6 +254,15 @@ extern void bpf_throw(u64 cookie) __ksym;
> }
> \
> })
>
> +#define _EQ(LHS, RHS) \
> + ({ int var = 1;\
> + asm volatile goto("if %[lhs] == %[rhs] goto %l[l_yes]" \
> + :: [lhs] "r"(LHS), [rhs] "i"(RHS) :: l_yes);\
> + var = 0;\
> +l_yes:\
> + var;\
> + })
Realized we can do much better.
We can take advantage that bpf assembly syntax resembles C and do:
bpf_assert(CMP(cookie, "!=", 0);
and use it as generic "volatile compare" that compiler cannot optimize out:
Replacing:
if (foo < bar) ...
with
if (CMP(foo, "<", bar)) ...
when the compare operator should be preserved.
I'll try to prototype it soon.
Might go further and use C++ for bpf programs :)
Override operator<, opreator==, ...
then if (foo < bar) will be in asm code as written in C++ bpf prog.
