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 5.14-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-5.14 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-5.14/s390-bpf-fix-branch-shortening-during-codegen-pass.patch queue-5.14/s390-bpf-fix-optimizing-out-zero-extensions.patch queue-5.14/s390-bpf-fix-64-bit-subtraction-of-the-0x80000000-constant.patch