Re: [PATCH v2] loongarch/bpf: Skip speculation barrier opcode, which caused ltp testcase bpf_prog02 to fail

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 3/28/23 9:13 AM, George Guo wrote:
Here just skip the opcode(BPF_ST | BPF_NOSPEC) that has no couterpart to the loongarch.

To verify, use ltp testcase:

Without this patch:
$ ./bpf_prog02
... ...
bpf_common.c:123: TBROK: Failed verification: ??? (524)

Summary:
passed   0
failed   0
broken   1
skipped  0
warnings 0

With this patch:
$ ./bpf_prog02
... ...
Summary:
passed   0
failed   0
broken   0
skipped  0
warnings 0

Signed-off-by: George Guo <guodongtai@xxxxxxxxxx>

---
Changelog:
v2:
	- place it to build_insn
	- add printing for skipping bpf_jit the opcode
---
  arch/loongarch/net/bpf_jit.c | 5 +++++
  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/loongarch/net/bpf_jit.c b/arch/loongarch/net/bpf_jit.c
index 288003a9f0ca..d3c6b1c4ccbb 100644
--- a/arch/loongarch/net/bpf_jit.c
+++ b/arch/loongarch/net/bpf_jit.c
@@ -1022,6 +1022,11 @@ static int build_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct jit_ctx *ctx, bool ext
  		emit_atomic(insn, ctx);
  		break;
+ /* Speculation barrier */
+	case BPF_ST | BPF_NOSPEC:
+		pr_info_once("bpf_jit: skip speculation barrier opcode %0x2x\n", code);
+		break;

Thanks that looks better. Question to LoongArch folks (Cc): There is no equivalent
to a speculation barrier here, correct? Either way, I think the pr_info_once() can
just be removed given there is little value for a users to have this in the kernel
log. I can take care of this while applying, that's fine.

  	default:
  		pr_err("bpf_jit: unknown opcode %02x\n", code);
  		return -EINVAL;





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux