| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <02a9bfb2-4a75-d56f-4565-6ce5ea5e03c4@iogearbox.net>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2023 15:46:07 +0100
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To: Yang Jihong <yangjihong1@...wei.com>, ast@...nel.org,
andrii@...nel.org, martin.lau@...ux.dev, song@...nel.org,
yhs@...com, john.fastabend@...il.com, kpsingh@...nel.org,
sdf@...gle.com, haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org,
illusionist.neo@...il.com, linux@...linux.org.uk,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
Florent Revest <revest@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4] bpf: Add kernel function call support in
32-bit ARM for EABI
On 12/20/22 12:53 PM, Yang Jihong wrote:
> This patch adds kernel function call support to 32-bit ARM bpf jit for
> EABI.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yang Jihong <yangjihong1@...wei.com>
> ---
>
> Changes since v3:
> - Submit patches related to the ARM32 architecture separately.
>
> Changes since v2:
> - Remove patches to adjust sk size check for CO_RE in 32-bit arch.
> - Add check of kfunc's return value in insn_def_regno.
> - Adjust is_reg64 for insn_def_regno.
> - The check of CONFIG_AEABI is moved from emit_kfunc_call to
> bpf_jit_supports_kfunc_call.
> - Fix a comment error in fixup_kfunc_call.
>
> arch/arm/net/bpf_jit_32.c | 137 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 137 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/net/bpf_jit_32.c b/arch/arm/net/bpf_jit_32.c
> index 6a1c9fca5260..ae3a36d909f4 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/net/bpf_jit_32.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/net/bpf_jit_32.c
> @@ -1337,6 +1337,125 @@ static void build_epilogue(struct jit_ctx *ctx)
> #endif
> }
>
> +/*
> + * Input parameters of function in 32-bit ARM architecture:
> + * The first four word-sized parameters passed to a function will be
> + * transferred in registers R0-R3. Sub-word sized arguments, for example,
> + * char, will still use a whole register.
> + * Arguments larger than a word will be passed in multiple registers.
> + * If more arguments are passed, the fifth and subsequent words will be passed
> + * on the stack.
> + *
> + * The first for args of a function will be considered for
> + * putting into the 32bit register R1, R2, R3 and R4.
> + *
> + * Two 32bit registers are used to pass a 64bit arg.
> + *
> + * For example,
> + * void foo(u32 a, u32 b, u32 c, u32 d, u32 e):
> + * u32 a: R0
> + * u32 b: R1
> + * u32 c: R2
> + * u32 d: R3
> + * u32 e: stack
> + *
> + * void foo(u64 a, u32 b, u32 c, u32 d):
> + * u64 a: R0 (lo32) R1 (hi32)
> + * u32 b: R2
> + * u32 c: R3
> + * u32 d: stack
> + *
> + * void foo(u32 a, u64 b, u32 c, u32 d):
> + * u32 a: R0
> + * u64 b: R2 (lo32) R3 (hi32)
> + * u32 c: stack
> + * u32 d: stack
> + *
> + * void foo(u32 a, u32 b, u64 c, u32 d):
> + * u32 a: R0
> + * u32 b: R1
> + * u64 c: R2 (lo32) R3 (hi32)
> + * u32 d: stack
> + *
> + * void foo(u64 a, u64 b):
> + * u64 a: R0 (lo32) R1 (hi32)
> + * u64 b: R2 (lo32) R3 (hi32)
> + *
> + * The return value will be stored in the R0 (and R1 for 64bit value).
> + *
> + * For example,
> + * u32 foo(u32 a, u32 b, u32 c):
> + * return value: R0
> + *
> + * u64 foo(u32 a, u32 b, u32 c):
> + * return value: R0 (lo32) R1 (hi32)
> + *
> + * The above is for AEABI only, OABI does not support this function.
> + */
> +static int emit_kfunc_call(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct jit_ctx *ctx, const u32 func)
> +{
> + int i;
> + const struct btf_func_model *fm;
> + const s8 *tmp = bpf2a32[TMP_REG_1];
> + const u8 arg_regs[] = { ARM_R0, ARM_R1, ARM_R2, ARM_R3 };
> + int nr_arg_regs = ARRAY_SIZE(arg_regs);
> + int arg_regs_idx = 0, stack_off = 0;
> + const s8 *rd;
> + s8 rt;
> +
> + fm = bpf_jit_find_kfunc_model(ctx->prog, insn);
> + if (!fm)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < fm->nr_args; i++) {
> + if (fm->arg_size[i] > sizeof(u32)) {
> + rd = arm_bpf_get_reg64(bpf2a32[BPF_REG_1 + i], tmp, ctx);
> +
> + if (arg_regs_idx + 1 < nr_arg_regs) {
> + /*
> + * AAPCS states:
> + * A double-word sized type is passed in two
> + * consecutive registers (e.g., r0 and r1, or
> + * r2 and r3). The content of the registers is
> + * as if the value had been loaded from memory
> + * representation with a single LDM instruction.
> + */
> + if (arg_regs_idx & 1)
> + arg_regs_idx++;
> +
> + emit(ARM_MOV_R(arg_regs[arg_regs_idx++], rd[1]), ctx);
> + emit(ARM_MOV_R(arg_regs[arg_regs_idx++], rd[0]), ctx);
> + } else {
> + stack_off = ALIGN(stack_off, STACK_ALIGNMENT);
> +
> + if (__LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ >= 6 ||
> + ctx->cpu_architecture >= CPU_ARCH_ARMv5TE) {
> + emit(ARM_STRD_I(rd[1], ARM_SP, stack_off), ctx);
> + } else {
> + emit(ARM_STR_I(rd[1], ARM_SP, stack_off), ctx);
> + emit(ARM_STR_I(rd[0], ARM_SP, stack_off), ctx);
> + }
> +
> + stack_off += 8;
> + }
> + } else {
> + rt = arm_bpf_get_reg32(bpf2a32[BPF_REG_1 + i][1], tmp[1], ctx);
> +
> + if (arg_regs_idx < nr_arg_regs) {
> + emit(ARM_MOV_R(arg_regs[arg_regs_idx++], rt), ctx);
> + } else {
> + emit(ARM_STR_I(rt, ARM_SP, stack_off), ctx);
> + stack_off += 4;
> + }
> + }
> + }
> +
> + emit_a32_mov_i(tmp[1], func, ctx);
> + emit_blx_r(tmp[1], ctx);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> /*
> * Convert an eBPF instruction to native instruction, i.e
> * JITs an eBPF instruction.
> @@ -1603,6 +1722,10 @@ static int build_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct jit_ctx *ctx)
> case BPF_LDX | BPF_MEM | BPF_H:
> case BPF_LDX | BPF_MEM | BPF_B:
> case BPF_LDX | BPF_MEM | BPF_DW:
> + case BPF_LDX | BPF_PROBE_MEM | BPF_W:
> + case BPF_LDX | BPF_PROBE_MEM | BPF_H:
> + case BPF_LDX | BPF_PROBE_MEM | BPF_B:
> + case BPF_LDX | BPF_PROBE_MEM | BPF_DW:
This doesn't look right, why is this part of the patch? It's not kfunc related
and if you plan to add support for ldx_probe_mem then it should be separated from
this set. Check out 800834285361 ("bpf, arm64: Add BPF exception tables"), why is
this not needed for arm32?
> rn = arm_bpf_get_reg32(src_lo, tmp2[1], ctx);
> emit_ldx_r(dst, rn, off, ctx, BPF_SIZE(code));
> break;
> @@ -1785,6 +1908,16 @@ static int build_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct jit_ctx *ctx)
> const s8 *r5 = bpf2a32[BPF_REG_5];
> const u32 func = (u32)__bpf_call_base + (u32)imm;
>
> + if (insn->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL) {
> + int err;
> +
> + err = emit_kfunc_call(insn, ctx, func);
> +
> + if (err)
> + return err;
> + break;
> + }
> +
> emit_a32_mov_r64(true, r0, r1, ctx);
> emit_a32_mov_r64(true, r1, r2, ctx);
> emit_push_r64(r5, ctx);
> @@ -2022,3 +2155,7 @@ struct bpf_prog *bpf_int_jit_compile(struct bpf_prog *prog)
> return prog;
> }
>
> +bool bpf_jit_supports_kfunc_call(void)
> +{
> + return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_AEABI);
> +}
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists