[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200211001526.xbfwdnpjqrg3ed6q@ast-mbp>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 16:15:27 -0800
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@...gle.com>
Cc: Bjorn Topel <bjorn.topel@...il.com>, daniel@...earbox.net,
ast@...nel.org, zlim.lnx@...il.com, catalin.marinas@....com,
will@...nel.org, kafai@...com, songliubraving@...com, yhs@...com,
andriin@...com, shuah@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] arm64: bpf: Elide some moves to a0 after calls
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 06:11:45PM -0800, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>
> + /* Handle BPF_REG_0, which may be in the wrong place because the ARM64
> + * ABI doesn't match the BPF ABI for function calls. */
> + if (ctx->reg0_in_reg1) {
> + /* If we're writing BPF_REG_0 then we don't need to do any
> + * extra work to get the registers back in their correct
> + * locations. */
> + if (insn->dst_reg == BPF_REG_0)
> + ctx->reg0_in_reg1 = false;
> +
> + /* If we're writing to BPF_REG_1 then we need to save BPF_REG_0
> + * into the correct location if it's still alive, as otherwise
> + * it will be clobbered. */
> + if (insn->dst_reg == BPF_REG_1) {
> + if (!dead_register(ctx, off + 1, BPF_REG_0))
> + emit(A64_MOV(1, A64_R(7), A64_R(0)), ctx);
> + ctx->reg0_in_reg1 = false;
> + }
> + }
I'm not sure this is correct, since it processes insns as a linear code, but
there could be jumps in the middle. The logic should be following the control
flow of the program. The verifier is a better place to do such analysis.
I don't see how JITs can do it on their own.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists