lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Dec]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH bpf] riscv, bpf: Emit fixed-length imm64 for BPF_PSEUDO_FUNC
From


On 2022/11/30 19:38, Björn Töpel wrote:
> Pu Lehui <pulehui@huaweicloud.com> writes:
>
>> From: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
>>
>> For BPF_PSEUDO_FUNC instruction, verifier will refill imm with
>> correct addresses of bpf_calls and then run last pass of JIT.
>> Since the emit_imm of RV64 is variable-length, which will emit
>> appropriate length instructions accorroding to the imm, it may
>> broke ctx->offset, and lead to unpredictable problem, such as
>> inaccurate jump. So let's fix it with fixed-length imm64 insns.
>
> Ah, nice one! So, the the invariant doesn't hold (the image grow in the
> last pass).
>
>> Fixes: 69c087ba6225 ("bpf: Add bpf_for_each_map_elem() helper")
>
> This is odd? This can't be the right Fixes-tag...
>

Only BPF_PSEUDO_FUNC instruction need extra jit pass after refill imm in
jit_subprogs. Others, like bpf helper call, will update ctx->offset in
jit iterations. So the fixes-tag is 69c087ba6225.

>> Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
>> index eb99df41fa33..f984d5fa014b 100644
>> --- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
>> +++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
>> @@ -139,6 +139,30 @@ static bool in_auipc_jalr_range(s64 val)
>> val < ((1L << 31) - (1L << 11));
>> }
>>
>> +/* Emit fixed-length instructions for 32-bit imm */
>> +static void emit_fixed_imm32(u8 rd, s32 val, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
>> +{
>> + s32 upper = (val + (1U << 11)) >> 12;
>> + s32 lower = ((val & 0xfff) << 20) >> 20;
>> +
>> + emit(rv_lui(rd, upper), ctx);
>> + emit(rv_addi(rd, rd, lower), ctx);
>> +}
>> +
>> +/* Emit fixed-length instructions for 64-bit imm */
>> +static void emit_fixed_imm64(u8 rd, s64 val, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
>> +{
>> + /* Compensation for sign-extension of rv_addi */
>> + s32 imm_hi = (val + (1U << 31)) >> 32;
>> + s32 imm_lo = val;
>> +
>> + emit_fixed_imm32(rd, imm_hi, ctx);
>> + emit_fixed_imm32(RV_REG_T1, imm_lo, ctx);
>> + emit(rv_slli(rd, rd, 32), ctx);
>> + emit(rv_add(rd, rd, RV_REG_T1), ctx);
>> +}
>
> Hmm, will this really be fixed? We can end up with compressed
> instructions, which can then be a non-compressed in the last pass, and
> we have the same problem?
>
> The range of valid address for RV64 (sv39 to sv57) are
> 0xffffffff00000000 to 0xffffffffffffffff, so I think we can do better
> than 6 insn, no? My gut feeling (I need to tinker a bit) is that 4
> should be sufficient.
>
> Note that worst case for a imm64 load are 8 instructions, but this is
> not the general case.
>
>
> Björn

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-12-02 10:59    [W:0.050 / U:0.320 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site