lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Dec]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH bpf v2] riscv, bpf: Emit fixed-length instructions for BPF_PSEUDO_FUNC
From


On 2022/12/6 15:55, Björn Töpel wrote:
> Pu Lehui <pulehui@huaweicloud.com> writes:
>
>> Sorry for replying so late. For BPF_PSEUDO_FUNC instruction, verifier
>> will set insn[0].imm and insn[1].imm to 1 that make addr to 0x100000001
>> before extra pass, and also ctx->insns is NULL in iteration stage, all
>> of these make off out of range of AUIPC-ADDI range, and return failed.
>> We could add some special handling at different stages, but that seems a
>> little weird. By the way, I do not really like emit_addr function with
>> return value.
>
> My rational is that *if* for some reason the jit is passed an address
> that auipc/addi can't represent, we'd like to catch that and not emit
> broken code.
>
>> While a proper address is at least 2B alignment, and the valid address
>> is from 0xffffffff00000000 to 0xffffffffffffffff, we can make address
>> shifed 1 place to right, and addr >> 1 will always in the range of
>> AUIPC-ADDI range. We can get rid of the range detection. The
>> implementation is as follows:
>>
>> static void emit_addr(u8 rd, u64 addr, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
>> {
>> s64 imm = addr >> 1;
>> s64 upper = (imm + (1 << 11)) >> 12;
>> s64 lower = imm & 0xfff;
>>
>> emit(rv_lui(rd, upper), ctx);
>> emit(rv_addi(rd, rd, lower), ctx);
>> emit(rv_slli(rd, rd, 1), ctx);
>> }
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> That's a code generation penalty, instead of catching it at code
> gen. Don't like! :-) I much prefer the auipc/addi version.
>
> What do you think about the diff (on-top of your work) below?
>
> --8<--
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> index aa9410eef77c..7acaf28cb3be 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> @@ -137,15 +137,21 @@ static bool in_auipc_jalr_range(s64 val)
> }
>
> /* Emit fixed-length instructions for address */
> -static void emit_addr(u8 rd, u64 addr, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
> +static int emit_addr(u8 rd, u64 addr, bool extra_pass, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
> {
> u64 ip = (u64)(ctx->insns + ctx->ninsns);
> s64 off = addr - ip;
> s64 upper = (off + (1 << 11)) >> 12;
> s64 lower = ((off & 0xfff) << 52) >> 52;
>
> + if (extra_pass && !in_auipc_jalr_range(off)) {
> + pr_err("bpf-jit: target offset 0x%llx is out of range\n", off);
> + return -ERANGE;
> + }
> +
> emit(rv_auipc(rd, upper), ctx);
> emit(rv_addi(rd, rd, lower), ctx);
> + return 0;
> }
>
> /* Emit variable-length instructions for 32-bit and 64-bit imm */
> @@ -1061,13 +1067,17 @@ int bpf_jit_emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
> {
> struct bpf_insn insn1 = insn[1];
> u64 imm64;
> + int ret;
>
> imm64 = (u64)insn1.imm << 32 | (u32)imm;
> - if (bpf_pseudo_func(insn))
> + if (bpf_pseudo_func(insn)) {
> /* fixed-length insns for extra jit pass */
> - emit_addr(rd, imm64, ctx);
> - else
> + ret = emit_addr(rd, imm64, extra_pass, ctx);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> + } else {
> emit_imm(rd, imm64, ctx);
> + }
>
> return 1;
> }
>
> --8<--
>
> Wouldn't that work?
>

It definitely works. But auipc+addi may be some holes, while
lui+addi+slli support all the address of kernel and module. And this
might be help for the future feature porting.

>
> Björn

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-12-06 09:19    [W:0.111 / U:0.268 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site