On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 07:21:25PM +0100, Jose E. Marchesi wrote:
>
> [Differences from V1:
> - Use rst literal blocks for figures.
> - Avoid using | in the basic instruction/pseudo instruction figure.
> - Rebased to today's bpf-next master branch.]
>
> This patch modifies instruction-set.rst so it documents the encoding
> of BPF instructions in terms of how the bytes are stored (be it in an
> ELF file or as bytes in a memory buffer to be loaded into the kernel
> or some other BPF consumer) as opposed to how the instruction looks
> like once loaded.
>
> This is hopefully easier to understand by implementors looking to
> generate and/or consume bytes conforming BPF instructions.
>
> The patch also clarifies that the unused bytes in a pseudo-instruction
> shall be cleared with zeros.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jose E. Marchesi <jose.marchesi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks Jose, this looks a lot better. Just left a couple more small
suggestions + questions below before stamping.
>
> ---
> Documentation/bpf/instruction-set.rst | 44 +++++++++++++--------------
> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/instruction-set.rst b/Documentation/bpf/instruction-set.rst
> index 01802ed9b29b..3341bfe20e4d 100644
> --- a/Documentation/bpf/instruction-set.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/bpf/instruction-set.rst
> @@ -38,15 +38,13 @@ eBPF has two instruction encodings:
> * the wide instruction encoding, which appends a second 64-bit immediate (i.e.,
> constant) value after the basic instruction for a total of 128 bits.
>
> -The basic instruction encoding looks as follows for a little-endian processor,
> -where MSB and LSB mean the most significant bits and least significant bits,
> -respectively:
> +The fields conforming an encoded basic instruction are stored in the
> +following order::
>
> -============= ======= ======= ======= ============
> -32 bits (MSB) 16 bits 4 bits 4 bits 8 bits (LSB)
> -============= ======= ======= ======= ============
> -imm offset src_reg dst_reg opcode
> -============= ======= ======= ======= ============
> + opcode:8 src:4 dst:4 offset:16 imm:32 // In little-endian BPF.
> + opcode:8 dst:4 src:4 offset:16 imm:32 // In big-endian BPF.
The terms below use src_reg and dst_reg. Can we either update these code
blocks to match, or change the term definitions to "src" and "dst"? I'd
vote for the latter, given that we explain that it's the source /
destination register number where they're defined.
> +
> +Where,
IMO, we can probably remove this "Where,". I think it's pretty clear
that the following terms are referring to the code block above. Wdyt?
>
> **imm**
> signed integer immediate value
> @@ -64,16 +62,17 @@ imm offset src_reg dst_reg opcode
> **opcode**
> operation to perform
>
> -and as follows for a big-endian processor:
> +Note that the contents of multi-byte fields ('imm' and 'offset') are
> +stored using big-endian byte ordering in big-endian BPF and
> +little-endian byte ordering in little-endian BPF.
>
> -============= ======= ======= ======= ============
> -32 bits (MSB) 16 bits 4 bits 4 bits 8 bits (LSB)
> -============= ======= ======= ======= ============
> -imm offset dst_reg src_reg opcode
> -============= ======= ======= ======= ============
> +For example::
>
> -Multi-byte fields ('imm' and 'offset') are similarly stored in
> -the byte order of the processor.
> + opcode offset imm assembly
> + src dst
> + 07 0 1 00 00 44 33 22 11 r1 += 0x11223344 // little
> + dst src
> + 07 1 0 00 00 11 22 33 44 r1 += 0x11223344 // big
>
> Note that most instructions do not use all of the fields.
> Unused fields shall be cleared to zero.
> @@ -84,18 +83,19 @@ The 64 bits following the basic instruction contain a pseudo instruction
> using the same format but with opcode, dst_reg, src_reg, and offset all set to zero,
> and imm containing the high 32 bits of the immediate value.
>
> -================= ==================
> -64 bits (MSB) 64 bits (LSB)
> -================= ==================
> -basic instruction pseudo instruction
> -================= ==================
> +This is depicted in the following figure::
> +
> + basic_instruction pseudo instruction
> + ------------------------------- ------------------
> + code:8 regs:16 offset:16 imm:32 unused:32 imm:32
Don't want to bikeshed too much, but this seems a bit hard to read. It
kind of all looks like one line, though perhaps that was the intention.
Wdyt about this?
This is depicted in the following figure::
code:8 regs:16 offset:16 imm:32 // MSB: basic instruction
reserved:32 imm:32 // LSB: pseudo instruction
>
> Thus the 64-bit immediate value is constructed as follows:
>
> imm64 = (next_imm << 32) | imm
>
> where 'next_imm' refers to the imm value of the pseudo instruction
> -following the basic instruction.
> +following the basic instruction. The unused bytes in the pseudo
> +instruction shall be cleared to zero.
Also apologies if this is also a bikeshed and has already been
discussed, but should we say, "The unused bits in the pseudo instruction
are reserved" rather than saying they should be cleared to zero?
Implemenations should interpret "reserved" to mean that the bits should
be zeroed, no? Or at least that seems like the norm in technical
manuals. For example, reserved bits in control registers on x86 should
be cleared to avoid unexpected side effects if and when those bits are
eventually actually used for something in future releases.
Thanks,
David
