Hari Bathini wrote:
On 14/06/22 12:41 am, Hari Bathini wrote:
On 11/06/22 11:04 pm, Christophe Leroy wrote:
Le 10/06/2022 à 17:55, Hari Bathini a écrit :
This adds two atomic opcodes BPF_XCHG and BPF_CMPXCHG on ppc32, both
of which include the BPF_FETCH flag. The kernel's atomic_cmpxchg
operation fundamentally has 3 operands, but we only have two register
fields. Therefore the operand we compare against (the kernel's API
calls it 'old') is hard-coded to be BPF_REG_R0. Also, kernel's
atomic_cmpxchg returns the previous value at dst_reg + off. JIT the
same for BPF too with return value put in BPF_REG_0.
BPF_REG_R0 = atomic_cmpxchg(dst_reg + off, BPF_REG_R0, src_reg);
Signed-off-by: Hari Bathini <hbathini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Changes in v2:
* Moved variable declaration to avoid late declaration error on
some compilers.
* Tried to make code readable and compact.
arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++---
1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c
b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c
index 28dc6a1a8f2f..43f1c76d48ce 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c
@@ -297,6 +297,7 @@ int bpf_jit_build_body(struct bpf_prog *fp, u32
*image, struct codegen_context *
u32 ax_reg = bpf_to_ppc(BPF_REG_AX);
u32 tmp_reg = bpf_to_ppc(TMP_REG);
u32 size = BPF_SIZE(code);
+ u32 save_reg, ret_reg;
s16 off = insn[i].off;
s32 imm = insn[i].imm;
bool func_addr_fixed;
@@ -799,6 +800,9 @@ int bpf_jit_build_body(struct bpf_prog *fp, u32
*image, struct codegen_context *
* BPF_STX ATOMIC (atomic ops)
*/
case BPF_STX | BPF_ATOMIC | BPF_W:
+ save_reg = _R0;
+ ret_reg = src_reg;
+
bpf_set_seen_register(ctx, tmp_reg);
bpf_set_seen_register(ctx, ax_reg);
@@ -829,6 +833,21 @@ int bpf_jit_build_body(struct bpf_prog *fp, u32
*image, struct codegen_context *
case BPF_XOR | BPF_FETCH:
EMIT(PPC_RAW_XOR(_R0, _R0, src_reg));
break;
+ case BPF_CMPXCHG:
+ /*
+ * Return old value in BPF_REG_0 for BPF_CMPXCHG &
+ * in src_reg for other cases.
+ */
+ ret_reg = bpf_to_ppc(BPF_REG_0);
+
+ /* Compare with old value in BPF_REG_0 */
+ EMIT(PPC_RAW_CMPW(bpf_to_ppc(BPF_REG_0), _R0));
+ /* Don't set if different from old value */
+ PPC_BCC_SHORT(COND_NE, (ctx->idx + 3) * 4);
+ fallthrough;
+ case BPF_XCHG:
+ save_reg = src_reg;
I'm a bit lost, when save_reg is src_reg, don't we expect the upper part
(ie src_reg - 1) to be explicitely zeroised ?
For BPF_FETCH variants, old value is returned in src_reg (ret_reg).
In all such cases, higher 32-bit is zero'ed. But in case of BPF_CMPXCHG,
src_reg is untouched as BPF_REG_0 is used instead. So, higher 32-bit
remains untouched for that case alone..
+ break;
default:
pr_err_ratelimited("eBPF filter atomic op code
%02x (@%d) unsupported\n",
code, i);
@@ -836,15 +855,15 @@ int bpf_jit_build_body(struct bpf_prog *fp, u32
*image, struct codegen_context *
}
/* store new value */
- EMIT(PPC_RAW_STWCX(_R0, tmp_reg, dst_reg));
+ EMIT(PPC_RAW_STWCX(save_reg, tmp_reg, dst_reg));
/* we're done if this succeeded */
PPC_BCC_SHORT(COND_NE, tmp_idx);
/* For the BPF_FETCH variant, get old data into
src_reg */
With this commit, this comment is not true for BPF_CMPXCHG. So, this
comment should not be removed..
Sorry, the above should read:
"should be removed" instead of "should not be removed"..
Or, just add BPF_REG_0 at the end:
/* For the BPF_FETCH variant, get old data into src_reg/BPF_REG_0 */
The comment in CMPXCHG anyway details the difference. In any case, we
can clean this up subsequently.
- Naveen
