On Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 3:31 AM Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> +#define PROBE_MEM32_BASE (MAX_BPF_JIT_REG + 5)
>
> #define check_imm(bits, imm) do { \
> if ((((imm) > 0) && ((imm) >> (bits))) || \
> @@ -67,6 +68,8 @@ static const int bpf2a64[] = {
> /* temporary register for blinding constants */
> [BPF_REG_AX] = A64_R(9),
> [FP_BOTTOM] = A64_R(27),
> + /* callee saved register for kern_vm_start address */
> + [PROBE_MEM32_BASE] = A64_R(28),
> };
>
> struct jit_ctx {
> @@ -295,7 +298,7 @@ static bool is_lsi_offset(int offset, int scale)
> #define PROLOGUE_OFFSET (BTI_INSNS + 2 + PAC_INSNS + 8)
>
> static int build_prologue(struct jit_ctx *ctx, bool ebpf_from_cbpf,
> - bool is_exception_cb)
> + bool is_exception_cb, u64 arena_vm_start)
> {
> const struct bpf_prog *prog = ctx->prog;
> const bool is_main_prog = !bpf_is_subprog(prog);
> @@ -306,6 +309,7 @@ static int build_prologue(struct jit_ctx *ctx, bool ebpf_from_cbpf,
> const u8 fp = bpf2a64[BPF_REG_FP];
> const u8 tcc = bpf2a64[TCALL_CNT];
> const u8 fpb = bpf2a64[FP_BOTTOM];
> + const u8 pb = bpf2a64[PROBE_MEM32_BASE];
In addition to riscv comments please use more verbose name here.
'pb' is too cryptic.
'mem32_base' ?
I would also drop PROBE prefix and use:
#define MEM32_BASE (MAX_BPF_JIT_REG + 5)
>From the verifier pov the ld/st mode is BPF_PROBE_MEM32,
since it's asking JIT to emit code to probe read/write such arena address,
but from JIT pov the base is a real base that it got from
bpf_arena_get_kern_vm_start().
#define KERN_VM_START (MAX_BPF_JIT_REG + 5)
would be an alternative name that also fits.
or
#define ARENA_VM_START ...
