On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 03:39:48PM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 1/29/22 11:04 PM, Hou Tao wrote:
> > It is a preparation patch for eBPF atomic supports under arm64. eBPF
> > needs support atomic[64]_fetch_add, atomic[64]_[fetch_]{and,or,xor} and
> > atomic[64]_{xchg|cmpxchg}. The ordering semantics of eBPF atomics are
> > the same with the implementations in linux kernel.
> >
> > Add three helpers to support LDCLR/LDEOR/LDSET/SWP, CAS and DMB
> > instructions. STADD/STCLR/STEOR/STSET are simply encoded as aliases for
> > LDADD/LDCLR/LDEOR/LDSET with XZR as the destination register, so no extra
> > helper is added. atomic_fetch_add() and other atomic ops needs support for
> > STLXR instruction, so extend enum aarch64_insn_ldst_type to do that.
> >
> > LDADD/LDEOR/LDSET/SWP and CAS instructions are only available when LSE
> > atomics is enabled, so just return AARCH64_BREAK_FAULT directly in
> > these newly-added helpers if CONFIG_ARM64_LSE_ATOMICS is disabled.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <houtao1@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Hey Mark / Ard / Will / Catalin or others, could we get an Ack on patch 1 & 2
> at min if it looks good to you?
I checked the instruction encodings in patches 1 and 2 and they all look
fine to me. However, after applying those two locally I get a build failure:
| In file included from arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:23:
| arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c: In function ‘build_insn’:
| arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit.h:94:2: error: implicit declaration of function ‘aarch64_insn_gen_stadd’; did you mean ‘aarch64_insn_gen_adr’? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
| 94 | aarch64_insn_gen_stadd(Rn, Rs, A64_SIZE(sf))
| | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:912:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘A64_STADD’
| 912 | emit(A64_STADD(isdw, reg, src), ctx);
| | ^~~~~~~~~
| cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
Will
