Hello,
Paul Burton wrote:
> The function prototype used to call JITed eBPF code (ie. the type of the
> struct bpf_prog bpf_func field) returns an unsigned int. The MIPS n64
> ABI that MIPS64 kernels target defines that 32 bit integers should
> always be sign extended when passed in registers as either arguments or
> return values.
>
> This means that when returning any value which may not already be sign
> extended (ie. of type REG_64BIT or REG_32BIT_ZERO_EX) we need to perform
> that sign extension in order to comply with the n64 ABI. Without this we
> see strange looking test failures from test_bpf.ko, such as:
>
> test_bpf: #65 ALU64_MOV_X:
> dst = 4294967295 jited:1 ret -1 != -1 FAIL (1 times)
>
> Although the return value printed matches the expected value, this is
> only because printf is only examining the least significant 32 bits of
> the 64 bit register value we returned. The register holding the expected
> value is sign extended whilst the v0 register was set to a zero extended
> value by our JITed code, so when compared by a conditional branch
> instruction the values are not equal.
>
> We already handle this when the return value register is of type
> REG_32BIT_ZERO_EX, so simply extend this to also cover REG_64BIT.
>
> Signed-off-by: Paul Burton <paul.burton@xxxxxxxx>
> Fixes: b6bd53f9c4e8 ("MIPS: Add missing file for eBPF JIT.")
> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # v4.13+
Series applied to mips-next.
Thanks,
Paul
[ This message was auto-generated; if you believe anything is incorrect
then please email paul.burton@xxxxxxxx to report it. ]
