Hi Christophe,
Thanks for reviewing the series.
On 17/09/21 9:40 pm, Christophe Leroy wrote:
Le 17/09/2021 à 17:30, Hari Bathini a écrit :
Refactor powerpc JITing. This simplifies adding BPF_PROBE_MEM support.
Could you describe a bit more what you are refactoring exactly ?
I am trying to do more than BPF_PROBE_MEM needs. Will keep the changes
minimal (BPF_PROBE_MEM specific) and update the changelog..
Signed-off-by: Hari Bathini <hbathini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Changes in v2:
* New patch to refactor a bit of JITing code.
arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c | 50 +++++++++++---------
arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c | 76 ++++++++++++++++---------------
2 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 58 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c
b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c
index b60b59426a24..c8ae14c316e3 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c
@@ -276,17 +276,17 @@ int bpf_jit_build_body(struct bpf_prog *fp, u32
*image, struct codegen_context *
u32 exit_addr = addrs[flen];
for (i = 0; i < flen; i++) {
- u32 code = insn[i].code;
u32 dst_reg = bpf_to_ppc(ctx, insn[i].dst_reg);
- u32 dst_reg_h = dst_reg - 1;
u32 src_reg = bpf_to_ppc(ctx, insn[i].src_reg);
- u32 src_reg_h = src_reg - 1;
u32 tmp_reg = bpf_to_ppc(ctx, TMP_REG);
+ u32 true_cond, code = insn[i].code;
+ u32 dst_reg_h = dst_reg - 1;
+ u32 src_reg_h = src_reg - 1;
All changes above seems unneeded and not linked to the current patch.
Please leave cosmetic changes outside and focus on necessary changes.
+ u32 size = BPF_SIZE(code);
s16 off = insn[i].off;
s32 imm = insn[i].imm;
bool func_addr_fixed;
u64 func_addr;
- u32 true_cond;
/*
* addrs[] maps a BPF bytecode address into a real offset from
@@ -809,25 +809,33 @@ int bpf_jit_build_body(struct bpf_prog *fp, u32
*image, struct codegen_context *
/*
* BPF_LDX
*/
- case BPF_LDX | BPF_MEM | BPF_B: /* dst = *(u8 *)(ul) (src +
off) */
- EMIT(PPC_RAW_LBZ(dst_reg, src_reg, off));
- if (!fp->aux->verifier_zext)
- EMIT(PPC_RAW_LI(dst_reg_h, 0));
- break;
- case BPF_LDX | BPF_MEM | BPF_H: /* dst = *(u16 *)(ul) (src +
off) */
- EMIT(PPC_RAW_LHZ(dst_reg, src_reg, off));
- if (!fp->aux->verifier_zext)
- EMIT(PPC_RAW_LI(dst_reg_h, 0));
- break;
- case BPF_LDX | BPF_MEM | BPF_W: /* dst = *(u32 *)(ul) (src +
off) */
- EMIT(PPC_RAW_LWZ(dst_reg, src_reg, off));
- if (!fp->aux->verifier_zext)
+ /* dst = *(u8 *)(ul) (src + off) */
+ case BPF_LDX | BPF_MEM | BPF_B:
+ /* dst = *(u16 *)(ul) (src + off) */
+ case BPF_LDX | BPF_MEM | BPF_H:
+ /* dst = *(u32 *)(ul) (src + off) */
+ case BPF_LDX | BPF_MEM | BPF_W:
+ /* dst = *(u64 *)(ul) (src + off) */
+ case BPF_LDX | BPF_MEM | BPF_DW:
Why changing the location of the comments ? I found it more readable
before.
Sure. I will revert that change.
+ switch (size) {
+ case BPF_B:
+ EMIT(PPC_RAW_LBZ(dst_reg, src_reg, off));
+ break;
+ case BPF_H:
+ EMIT(PPC_RAW_LHZ(dst_reg, src_reg, off));
+ break;
+ case BPF_W:
+ EMIT(PPC_RAW_LWZ(dst_reg, src_reg, off));
+ break;
+ case BPF_DW:
+ EMIT(PPC_RAW_LWZ(dst_reg_h, src_reg, off));
+ EMIT(PPC_RAW_LWZ(dst_reg, src_reg, off + 4));
+ break;
+ }
BPF_B, BPF_H, ... are not part of an enum. Are you sure GCC is happy to
have no default ?
I used gcc 10.3 for ppc32 & gcc 8.3 for ppc64. No warnings.
Though, no harm adding the below, I guess..
default:
break;
Thanks
Hari
