[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANk7y0ihF2RvwGXK0p0gOaGrMoPxfb6fcfn3-J40zn8LS8vROQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2023 18:51:23 +0200
From: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@...il.com>
To: Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
Cc: ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org,
martin.lau@...ux.dev, catalin.marinas@....com,
mark.rutland@....com, bpf@...r.kernel.org, kpsingh@...nel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/3] bpf, arm64: use bpf_jit_binary_pack_alloc
Hi Song,
On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 6:28 PM Song Liu <song@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 2:18 AM Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> [...]
> > +
> > static inline int epilogue_offset(const struct jit_ctx *ctx)
> > {
> > int to = ctx->epilogue_offset;
> > @@ -701,7 +716,8 @@ static int add_exception_handler(const struct bpf_insn *insn,
> > struct jit_ctx *ctx,
> > int dst_reg)
> > {
> > - off_t offset;
> > + off_t ins_offset;
> > + off_t fixup_offset;
>
> Please add some comments for these two offsets.
Here I am using two variables because I need to change from the RO
buffer for calculating offsets
to the RW buffer for writing.
Earlier, a single variable could work because it was being reused for
calculating the second offset
after writing the first one. Here, I can't re-calculate using the same
variable because I have to change
to the RW buffer, and using the same variable would need changing back
to the RO buffer.
So, I am calculating both offsets first, changing to RW buffer and
writing both offsets.
But I will add comments explaining what these offsets are being used for.
>
> > unsigned long pc;
> > struct exception_table_entry *ex;
> >
> > @@ -717,12 +733,11 @@ static int add_exception_handler(const struct bpf_insn *insn,
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > ex = &ctx->prog->aux->extable[ctx->exentry_idx];
> > - pc = (unsigned long)&ctx->image[ctx->idx - 1];
> > + pc = (unsigned long)&ctx->ro_image[ctx->idx - 1];
> >
> > - offset = pc - (long)&ex->insn;
> > - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(offset >= 0 || offset < INT_MIN))
> > + ins_offset = pc - (long)&ex->insn;
> > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(ins_offset >= 0 || ins_offset < INT_MIN))
> > return -ERANGE;
> > - ex->insn = offset;
> >
> > /*
> > * Since the extable follows the program, the fixup offset is always
> > @@ -732,11 +747,20 @@ static int add_exception_handler(const struct bpf_insn *insn,
> > * modifying the upper bits because the table is already sorted, and
> > * isn't part of the main exception table.
> > */
> > - offset = (long)&ex->fixup - (pc + AARCH64_INSN_SIZE);
> > - if (!FIELD_FIT(BPF_FIXUP_OFFSET_MASK, offset))
> > + fixup_offset = (long)&ex->fixup - (pc + AARCH64_INSN_SIZE);
> > + if (!FIELD_FIT(BPF_FIXUP_OFFSET_MASK, fixup_offset))
> > return -ERANGE;
> >
> > - ex->fixup = FIELD_PREP(BPF_FIXUP_OFFSET_MASK, offset) |
> > + /*
> > + * The offsets above have been calculated using the RO buffer but we
> > + * need to use the R/W buffer for writes.
> > + * switch ex to rw buffer for writing.
> > + */
> > + ex = (void *)ctx->image + ((void *)ex - (void *)ctx->ro_image);
> > +
> > + ex->insn = ins_offset;
> > +
> > + ex->fixup = FIELD_PREP(BPF_FIXUP_OFFSET_MASK, fixup_offset) |
> > FIELD_PREP(BPF_FIXUP_REG_MASK, dst_reg);
> >
> > ex->type = EX_TYPE_BPF;
> [...]
> > /* And we're done. */
> > if (bpf_jit_enable > 1)
> > bpf_jit_dump(prog->len, prog_size, 2, ctx.image);
> >
> > - bpf_flush_icache(header, ctx.image + ctx.idx);
> > + bpf_flush_icache(ro_header, ctx.ro_image + ctx.idx);
> >
> > if (!prog->is_func || extra_pass) {
> > if (extra_pass && ctx.idx != jit_data->ctx.idx) {
> > pr_err_once("multi-func JIT bug %d != %d\n",
> > ctx.idx, jit_data->ctx.idx);
> > - bpf_jit_binary_free(header);
> > prog->bpf_func = NULL;
> > prog->jited = 0;
> > prog->jited_len = 0;
> > + goto out_free_hdr;
> > + }
> > + if (WARN_ON(bpf_jit_binary_pack_finalize(prog, ro_header,
> > + header))) {
> > + ro_header = NULL;
>
> I think we need
> prog = orig_prog;
> here.
I agree, this is a mistake from my side.
I will add this in the next version.
Thanks,
Puranjay Mohan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists