| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 09:55:36 +0200
From: Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...il.com>
To: Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@...ronome.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
oss-drivers@...ronome.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 14/15] riscv: bpf: eliminate zero extension code-gen
On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 at 19:26, Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@...ronome.com> wrote:
>
> CC: Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@...ronome.com>
> ---
> arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++-------------
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> index 80b12aa..9cba262 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> @@ -731,6 +731,7 @@ static int emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
> {
> bool is64 = BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_ALU64 ||
> BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_JMP;
> + struct bpf_prog_aux *aux = ctx->prog->aux;
> int rvoff, i = insn - ctx->prog->insnsi;
> u8 rd = -1, rs = -1, code = insn->code;
> s16 off = insn->off;
> @@ -743,7 +744,7 @@ static int emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
> case BPF_ALU | BPF_MOV | BPF_X:
> case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOV | BPF_X:
> emit(is64 ? rv_addi(rd, rs, 0) : rv_addiw(rd, rs, 0), ctx);
> - if (!is64)
> + if (!is64 && aux->no_verifier_zext)
> emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
> break;
>
> @@ -771,19 +772,19 @@ static int emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
> case BPF_ALU | BPF_MUL | BPF_X:
> case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MUL | BPF_X:
> emit(is64 ? rv_mul(rd, rd, rs) : rv_mulw(rd, rd, rs), ctx);
> - if (!is64)
> + if (!is64 && aux->no_verifier_zext)
> emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
> break;
> case BPF_ALU | BPF_DIV | BPF_X:
> case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_DIV | BPF_X:
> emit(is64 ? rv_divu(rd, rd, rs) : rv_divuw(rd, rd, rs), ctx);
> - if (!is64)
> + if (!is64 && aux->no_verifier_zext)
> emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
> break;
> case BPF_ALU | BPF_MOD | BPF_X:
> case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOD | BPF_X:
> emit(is64 ? rv_remu(rd, rd, rs) : rv_remuw(rd, rd, rs), ctx);
> - if (!is64)
> + if (!is64 && aux->no_verifier_zext)
> emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
> break;
> case BPF_ALU | BPF_LSH | BPF_X:
> @@ -867,7 +868,7 @@ static int emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
> case BPF_ALU | BPF_MOV | BPF_K:
> case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOV | BPF_K:
> emit_imm(rd, imm, ctx);
> - if (!is64)
> + if (!is64 && aux->no_verifier_zext)
> emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
> break;
>
> @@ -882,7 +883,7 @@ static int emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
> emit(is64 ? rv_add(rd, rd, RV_REG_T1) :
> rv_addw(rd, rd, RV_REG_T1), ctx);
> }
> - if (!is64)
> + if (!is64 && aux->no_verifier_zext)
> emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
> break;
> case BPF_ALU | BPF_SUB | BPF_K:
> @@ -895,7 +896,7 @@ static int emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
> emit(is64 ? rv_sub(rd, rd, RV_REG_T1) :
> rv_subw(rd, rd, RV_REG_T1), ctx);
> }
> - if (!is64)
> + if (!is64 && aux->no_verifier_zext)
> emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
> break;
> case BPF_ALU | BPF_AND | BPF_K:
> @@ -906,7 +907,7 @@ static int emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
> emit_imm(RV_REG_T1, imm, ctx);
> emit(rv_and(rd, rd, RV_REG_T1), ctx);
> }
> - if (!is64)
> + if (!is64 && aux->no_verifier_zext)
> emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
> break;
> case BPF_ALU | BPF_OR | BPF_K:
> @@ -917,7 +918,7 @@ static int emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
> emit_imm(RV_REG_T1, imm, ctx);
> emit(rv_or(rd, rd, RV_REG_T1), ctx);
> }
> - if (!is64)
> + if (!is64 && aux->no_verifier_zext)
> emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
> break;
> case BPF_ALU | BPF_XOR | BPF_K:
> @@ -928,7 +929,7 @@ static int emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
> emit_imm(RV_REG_T1, imm, ctx);
> emit(rv_xor(rd, rd, RV_REG_T1), ctx);
> }
> - if (!is64)
> + if (!is64 && aux->no_verifier_zext)
> emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
> break;
> case BPF_ALU | BPF_MUL | BPF_K:
> @@ -936,7 +937,7 @@ static int emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
> emit_imm(RV_REG_T1, imm, ctx);
> emit(is64 ? rv_mul(rd, rd, RV_REG_T1) :
> rv_mulw(rd, rd, RV_REG_T1), ctx);
> - if (!is64)
> + if (!is64 && aux->no_verifier_zext)
> emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
> break;
> case BPF_ALU | BPF_DIV | BPF_K:
> @@ -944,7 +945,7 @@ static int emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
> emit_imm(RV_REG_T1, imm, ctx);
> emit(is64 ? rv_divu(rd, rd, RV_REG_T1) :
> rv_divuw(rd, rd, RV_REG_T1), ctx);
> - if (!is64)
> + if (!is64 && aux->no_verifier_zext)
> emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
> break;
> case BPF_ALU | BPF_MOD | BPF_K:
> @@ -952,7 +953,7 @@ static int emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
> emit_imm(RV_REG_T1, imm, ctx);
> emit(is64 ? rv_remu(rd, rd, RV_REG_T1) :
> rv_remuw(rd, rd, RV_REG_T1), ctx);
> - if (!is64)
> + if (!is64 && aux->no_verifier_zext)
> emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
> break;
> case BPF_ALU | BPF_LSH | BPF_K:
> @@ -1503,6 +1504,11 @@ static void bpf_flush_icache(void *start, void *end)
> flush_icache_range((unsigned long)start, (unsigned long)end);
> }
>
> +bool bpf_jit_hardware_zext(void)
> +{
> + return false;
> +}
> +
> struct bpf_prog *bpf_int_jit_compile(struct bpf_prog *prog)
> {
> bool tmp_blinded = false, extra_pass = false;
> --
> 2.7.4
>
Really interesting set!
For the RV-JIT patch:
Acked-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...il.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists