linux-kernel - [PATCH v1 04/10] powerpc/bpf/32: Only set a stack frame when necessary

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu,  1 Dec 2022 08:56:29 +0100
From:   Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
To:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
        Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
        Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH v1 04/10] powerpc/bpf/32: Only set a stack frame when necessary

Until now a stack frame was set at all time due to the need
to keep tail call counter in the stack.

But since commit fa025537f584 ("powerpc/bpf/32: Fix Oops on tail call
tests"), the tail call counter is passed via register r4. It is
therefore not necessary anymore to have a stack frame for that.

Just like PPC64, implement bpf_has_stack_frame() and only sets the frame
when needed.

The difference with PPC64 is that PPC32 doesn't have a redzone, so
the stack is required as soon as non volatile registers are used or
when tail call count is set up.

Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
---
 arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c
index 4e6caee9c98a..7f54d37bede6 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c
@@ -79,6 +79,20 @@ static int bpf_jit_stack_offsetof(struct codegen_context *ctx, int reg)
 #define SEEN_NVREG_FULL_MASK	0x0003ffff /* Non volatile registers r14-r31 */
 #define SEEN_NVREG_TEMP_MASK	0x00001e01 /* BPF_REG_5, BPF_REG_AX, TMP_REG */
 
+static inline bool bpf_has_stack_frame(struct codegen_context *ctx)
+{
+	/*
+	 * We only need a stack frame if:
+	 * - we call other functions (kernel helpers), or
+	 * - we use non volatile registers, or
+	 * - we use tail call counter
+	 * - the bpf program uses its stack area
+	 * The latter condition is deduced from the usage of BPF_REG_FP
+	 */
+	return ctx->seen & (SEEN_FUNC | SEEN_TAILCALL | SEEN_NVREG_FULL_MASK) ||
+	       bpf_is_seen_register(ctx, bpf_to_ppc(BPF_REG_FP));
+}
+
 void bpf_jit_realloc_regs(struct codegen_context *ctx)
 {
 	unsigned int nvreg_mask;
@@ -121,7 +135,8 @@ void bpf_jit_build_prologue(u32 *image, struct codegen_context *ctx)
 
 #define BPF_TAILCALL_PROLOGUE_SIZE	4
 
-	EMIT(PPC_RAW_STWU(_R1, _R1, -BPF_PPC_STACKFRAME(ctx)));
+	if (bpf_has_stack_frame(ctx))
+		EMIT(PPC_RAW_STWU(_R1, _R1, -BPF_PPC_STACKFRAME(ctx)));
 
 	if (ctx->seen & SEEN_TAILCALL)
 		EMIT(PPC_RAW_STW(_R4, _R1, bpf_jit_stack_offsetof(ctx, BPF_PPC_TC)));
@@ -174,7 +189,8 @@ static void bpf_jit_emit_common_epilogue(u32 *image, struct codegen_context *ctx
 		EMIT(PPC_RAW_LWZ(_R0, _R1, BPF_PPC_STACKFRAME(ctx) + PPC_LR_STKOFF));
 
 	/* Tear down our stack frame */
-	EMIT(PPC_RAW_ADDI(_R1, _R1, BPF_PPC_STACKFRAME(ctx)));
+	if (bpf_has_stack_frame(ctx))
+		EMIT(PPC_RAW_ADDI(_R1, _R1, BPF_PPC_STACKFRAME(ctx)));
 
 	if (ctx->seen & SEEN_FUNC)
 		EMIT(PPC_RAW_MTLR(_R0));
-- 
2.38.1