[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0fd52966-24b2-c50c-4f23-93428d8993c4@fb.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 21:35:07 -0800
From: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
To: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com>, <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
CC: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
Florent Revest <revest@...omium.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 10/13] bpf: Add instructions for
atomic[64]_[fetch_]sub
On 11/27/20 9:57 AM, Brendan Jackman wrote:
> Including only interpreter and x86 JIT support.
>
> x86 doesn't provide an atomic exchange-and-subtract instruction that
> could be used for BPF_SUB | BPF_FETCH, however we can just emit a NEG
> followed by an XADD to get the same effect.
>
> Signed-off-by: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 16 ++++++++++++++--
> include/linux/filter.h | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> kernel/bpf/core.c | 1 +
> kernel/bpf/disasm.c | 16 ++++++++++++----
> kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 2 ++
> tools/include/linux/filter.h | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> 6 files changed, 69 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> index 7431b2937157..a8a9fab13fcf 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> @@ -823,6 +823,7 @@ static int emit_atomic(u8 **pprog, u8 atomic_op,
>
> /* emit opcode */
> switch (atomic_op) {
> + case BPF_SUB:
> case BPF_ADD:
> /* lock *(u32/u64*)(dst_reg + off) <op>= src_reg */
> EMIT1(simple_alu_opcodes[atomic_op]);
> @@ -1306,8 +1307,19 @@ st: if (is_imm8(insn->off))
>
> case BPF_STX | BPF_ATOMIC | BPF_W:
> case BPF_STX | BPF_ATOMIC | BPF_DW:
> - err = emit_atomic(&prog, insn->imm, dst_reg, src_reg,
> - insn->off, BPF_SIZE(insn->code));
> + if (insn->imm == (BPF_SUB | BPF_FETCH)) {
> + /*
> + * x86 doesn't have an XSUB insn, so we negate
> + * and XADD instead.
> + */
> + emit_neg(&prog, src_reg, BPF_SIZE(insn->code) == BPF_DW);
> + err = emit_atomic(&prog, BPF_ADD | BPF_FETCH,
> + dst_reg, src_reg, insn->off,
> + BPF_SIZE(insn->code));
> + } else {
> + err = emit_atomic(&prog, insn->imm, dst_reg, src_reg,
> + insn->off, BPF_SIZE(insn->code));
> + }
> if (err)
> return err;
> break;
> diff --git a/include/linux/filter.h b/include/linux/filter.h
> index 6186280715ed..a20a3a536bf5 100644
> --- a/include/linux/filter.h
> +++ b/include/linux/filter.h
> @@ -280,6 +280,26 @@ static inline bool insn_is_zext(const struct bpf_insn *insn)
> .off = OFF, \
> .imm = BPF_ADD | BPF_FETCH })
>
> +/* Atomic memory sub, *(uint *)(dst_reg + off16) -= src_reg */
> +
> +#define BPF_ATOMIC_SUB(SIZE, DST, SRC, OFF) \
> + ((struct bpf_insn) { \
> + .code = BPF_STX | BPF_SIZE(SIZE) | BPF_ATOMIC, \
> + .dst_reg = DST, \
> + .src_reg = SRC, \
> + .off = OFF, \
> + .imm = BPF_SUB })
Currently, llvm does not support XSUB, should we support it in llvm?
At source code, as implemented in JIT, user can just do a negate
followed by xadd.
> +
> +/* Atomic memory sub with fetch, src_reg = atomic_fetch_sub(*(dst_reg + off), src_reg); */
> +
> +#define BPF_ATOMIC_FETCH_SUB(SIZE, DST, SRC, OFF) \
> + ((struct bpf_insn) { \
> + .code = BPF_STX | BPF_SIZE(SIZE) | BPF_ATOMIC, \
> + .dst_reg = DST, \
> + .src_reg = SRC, \
> + .off = OFF, \
> + .imm = BPF_SUB | BPF_FETCH })
> +
> /* Atomic exchange, src_reg = atomic_xchg((dst_reg + off), src_reg) */
>
> #define BPF_ATOMIC_XCHG(SIZE, DST, SRC, OFF) \
[...]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists