On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 03:08:45PM +0000, Brendan Jackman wrote:
[ ... ]
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c
> index 0ae015ad1e05..dcf18612841b 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c
> @@ -2342,6 +2342,10 @@ bool __weak bpf_helper_changes_pkt_data(void *func)
> /* Return TRUE if the JIT backend wants verifier to enable sub-register usage
> * analysis code and wants explicit zero extension inserted by verifier.
> * Otherwise, return FALSE.
> + *
> + * The verifier inserts an explicit zero extension after BPF_CMPXCHGs even if
> + * you don't override this. JITs that don't want these extra insns can detect
> + * them using insn_is_zext.
> */
> bool __weak bpf_jit_needs_zext(void)
> {
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index 3d34ba492d46..ec1cbd565140 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -11061,8 +11061,16 @@ static int opt_subreg_zext_lo32_rnd_hi32(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
> */
> if (WARN_ON(!(insn.imm & BPF_FETCH)))
> return -EINVAL;
> - load_reg = insn.imm == BPF_CMPXCHG ? BPF_REG_0
> - : insn.src_reg;
> + /* There should already be a zero-extension inserted after BPF_CMPXCHG. */
> + if (insn.imm == BPF_CMPXCHG) {
> + struct bpf_insn *next = &insns[adj_idx + 1];
> +
> + if (WARN_ON(!insn_is_zext(next) || next->dst_reg != insn.src_reg))
> + return -EINVAL;
> + continue;
This is to avoid zext_patch again for the JITs with
bpf_jit_needs_zext() == true.
IIUC, at this point, aux[adj_idx].zext_dst == true which
means that the check_atomic() has already marked the
reg0->subreg_def properly.
> + }
> +
> + load_reg = insn.src_reg;
> } else {
> load_reg = insn.dst_reg;
> }
> @@ -11666,6 +11674,27 @@ static int fixup_bpf_calls(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
> continue;
> }
>
> + /* BPF_CMPXCHG always loads a value into R0, therefore always
> + * zero-extends. However some archs' equivalent instruction only
> + * does this load when the comparison is successful. So here we
> + * add a BPF_ZEXT_REG after every 32-bit CMPXCHG, so that such
> + * archs' JITs don't need to deal with the issue. Archs that
> + * don't face this issue may use insn_is_zext to detect and skip
> + * the added instruction.
> + */
> + if (insn->code == (BPF_STX | BPF_W | BPF_ATOMIC) && insn->imm == BPF_CMPXCHG) {
> + struct bpf_insn zext_patch[2] = { *insn, BPF_ZEXT_REG(BPF_REG_0) };
Then should this zext_patch only be done for "!bpf_jit_needs_zext()"
such that the above change in opt_subreg_zext_lo32_rnd_hi32()
becomes unnecessary?
> +
> + new_prog = bpf_patch_insn_data(env, i + delta, zext_patch, 2);
> + if (!new_prog)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + delta += 1;
> + env->prog = prog = new_prog;
> + insn = new_prog->insnsi + i + delta;
> + continue;
> + }
> +
> if (insn->code != (BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL))
> continue;
> if (insn->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_CALL)
