This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
s390/bpf: Fix optimizing out zero-extensions
to the 5.10-stable tree which can be found at:
http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
The filename of the patch is:
s390-bpf-fix-optimizing-out-zero-extensions.patch
and it can be found in the queue-5.10 subdirectory.
If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
please let <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> know about it.
>From db7bee653859ef7179be933e7d1384644f795f26 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2021 15:04:14 +0200
Subject: s390/bpf: Fix optimizing out zero-extensions
From: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
commit db7bee653859ef7179be933e7d1384644f795f26 upstream.
Currently the JIT completely removes things like `reg32 += 0`,
however, the BPF_ALU semantics requires the target register to be
zero-extended in such cases.
Fix by optimizing out only the arithmetic operation, but not the
subsequent zero-extension.
Reported-by: Johan Almbladh <johan.almbladh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Fixes: 054623105728 ("s390/bpf: Add s390x eBPF JIT compiler backend")
Reviewed-by: Heiko Carstens <hca@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Vasily Gorbik <gor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
--- a/arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
+++ b/arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
@@ -761,10 +761,10 @@ static noinline int bpf_jit_insn(struct
EMIT4(0xb9080000, dst_reg, src_reg);
break;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_ADD | BPF_K: /* dst = (u32) dst + (u32) imm */
- if (!imm)
- break;
- /* alfi %dst,imm */
- EMIT6_IMM(0xc20b0000, dst_reg, imm);
+ if (imm != 0) {
+ /* alfi %dst,imm */
+ EMIT6_IMM(0xc20b0000, dst_reg, imm);
+ }
EMIT_ZERO(dst_reg);
break;
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_ADD | BPF_K: /* dst = dst + imm */
@@ -786,10 +786,10 @@ static noinline int bpf_jit_insn(struct
EMIT4(0xb9090000, dst_reg, src_reg);
break;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_SUB | BPF_K: /* dst = (u32) dst - (u32) imm */
- if (!imm)
- break;
- /* alfi %dst,-imm */
- EMIT6_IMM(0xc20b0000, dst_reg, -imm);
+ if (imm != 0) {
+ /* alfi %dst,-imm */
+ EMIT6_IMM(0xc20b0000, dst_reg, -imm);
+ }
EMIT_ZERO(dst_reg);
break;
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_SUB | BPF_K: /* dst = dst - imm */
@@ -811,10 +811,10 @@ static noinline int bpf_jit_insn(struct
EMIT4(0xb90c0000, dst_reg, src_reg);
break;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_MUL | BPF_K: /* dst = (u32) dst * (u32) imm */
- if (imm == 1)
- break;
- /* msfi %r5,imm */
- EMIT6_IMM(0xc2010000, dst_reg, imm);
+ if (imm != 1) {
+ /* msfi %r5,imm */
+ EMIT6_IMM(0xc2010000, dst_reg, imm);
+ }
EMIT_ZERO(dst_reg);
break;
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MUL | BPF_K: /* dst = dst * imm */
@@ -867,6 +867,8 @@ static noinline int bpf_jit_insn(struct
if (BPF_OP(insn->code) == BPF_MOD)
/* lhgi %dst,0 */
EMIT4_IMM(0xa7090000, dst_reg, 0);
+ else
+ EMIT_ZERO(dst_reg);
break;
}
/* lhi %w0,0 */
@@ -999,10 +1001,10 @@ static noinline int bpf_jit_insn(struct
EMIT4(0xb9820000, dst_reg, src_reg);
break;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_XOR | BPF_K: /* dst = (u32) dst ^ (u32) imm */
- if (!imm)
- break;
- /* xilf %dst,imm */
- EMIT6_IMM(0xc0070000, dst_reg, imm);
+ if (imm != 0) {
+ /* xilf %dst,imm */
+ EMIT6_IMM(0xc0070000, dst_reg, imm);
+ }
EMIT_ZERO(dst_reg);
break;
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_XOR | BPF_K: /* dst = dst ^ imm */
@@ -1033,10 +1035,10 @@ static noinline int bpf_jit_insn(struct
EMIT6_DISP_LH(0xeb000000, 0x000d, dst_reg, dst_reg, src_reg, 0);
break;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_LSH | BPF_K: /* dst = (u32) dst << (u32) imm */
- if (imm == 0)
- break;
- /* sll %dst,imm(%r0) */
- EMIT4_DISP(0x89000000, dst_reg, REG_0, imm);
+ if (imm != 0) {
+ /* sll %dst,imm(%r0) */
+ EMIT4_DISP(0x89000000, dst_reg, REG_0, imm);
+ }
EMIT_ZERO(dst_reg);
break;
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_LSH | BPF_K: /* dst = dst << imm */
@@ -1058,10 +1060,10 @@ static noinline int bpf_jit_insn(struct
EMIT6_DISP_LH(0xeb000000, 0x000c, dst_reg, dst_reg, src_reg, 0);
break;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_RSH | BPF_K: /* dst = (u32) dst >> (u32) imm */
- if (imm == 0)
- break;
- /* srl %dst,imm(%r0) */
- EMIT4_DISP(0x88000000, dst_reg, REG_0, imm);
+ if (imm != 0) {
+ /* srl %dst,imm(%r0) */
+ EMIT4_DISP(0x88000000, dst_reg, REG_0, imm);
+ }
EMIT_ZERO(dst_reg);
break;
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_RSH | BPF_K: /* dst = dst >> imm */
@@ -1083,10 +1085,10 @@ static noinline int bpf_jit_insn(struct
EMIT6_DISP_LH(0xeb000000, 0x000a, dst_reg, dst_reg, src_reg, 0);
break;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_ARSH | BPF_K: /* ((s32) dst >> imm */
- if (imm == 0)
- break;
- /* sra %dst,imm(%r0) */
- EMIT4_DISP(0x8a000000, dst_reg, REG_0, imm);
+ if (imm != 0) {
+ /* sra %dst,imm(%r0) */
+ EMIT4_DISP(0x8a000000, dst_reg, REG_0, imm);
+ }
EMIT_ZERO(dst_reg);
break;
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_ARSH | BPF_K: /* ((s64) dst) >>= imm */
Patches currently in stable-queue which might be from iii@xxxxxxxxxxxxx are
queue-5.10/s390-bpf-fix-branch-shortening-during-codegen-pass.patch
queue-5.10/s390-bpf-fix-optimizing-out-zero-extensions.patch
queue-5.10/s390-bpf-fix-64-bit-subtraction-of-the-0x80000000-constant.patch
