| 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: <20200506000320.28965-5-luke.r.nels@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2020 17:03:20 -0700
From: Luke Nelson <lukenels@...washington.edu>
To: bpf@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Luke Nelson <luke.r.nels@...il.com>, Xi Wang <xi.wang@...il.com>,
Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...il.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next 4/4] bpf, riscv: Optimize BPF_JSET BPF_K using andi on RV64
This patch optimizes BPF_JSET BPF_K by using a RISC-V andi instruction
when the BPF immediate fits in 12 bits, instead of first loading the
immediate to a temporary register.
Examples of generated code with and without this optimization:
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSET, R1, 2, 1) without optimization:
20: li t1,2
24: and t1,a0,t1
28: bnez t1,0x30
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSET, R1, 2, 1) with optimization:
20: andi t1,a0,2
24: bnez t1,0x2c
BPF_JMP32_IMM(BPF_JSET, R1, 2, 1) without optimization:
20: li t1,2
24: mv t2,a0
28: slli t2,t2,0x20
2c: srli t2,t2,0x20
30: slli t1,t1,0x20
34: srli t1,t1,0x20
38: and t1,t2,t1
3c: bnez t1,0x44
BPF_JMP32_IMM(BPF_JSET, R1, 2, 1) with optimization:
20: andi t1,a0,2
24: bnez t1,0x2c
In these examples, because the upper 32 bits of the sign-extended
immediate are 0, BPF_JMP BPF_JSET and BPF_JMP32 BPF_JSET are equivalent
and therefore the JIT produces identical code for them.
Co-developed-by: Xi Wang <xi.wang@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: Xi Wang <xi.wang@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: Luke Nelson <luke.r.nels@...il.com>
---
arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++--------
1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
index b07cef952019..6cfd164cbe88 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
+++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
@@ -792,8 +792,6 @@ int bpf_jit_emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
case BPF_JMP32 | BPF_JSGE | BPF_K:
case BPF_JMP | BPF_JSLE | BPF_K:
case BPF_JMP32 | BPF_JSLE | BPF_K:
- case BPF_JMP | BPF_JSET | BPF_K:
- case BPF_JMP32 | BPF_JSET | BPF_K:
rvoff = rv_offset(i, off, ctx);
s = ctx->ninsns;
if (imm) {
@@ -813,15 +811,28 @@ int bpf_jit_emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
/* Adjust for extra insns */
rvoff -= (e - s) << 2;
+ emit_branch(BPF_OP(code), rd, rs, rvoff, ctx);
+ break;
- if (BPF_OP(code) == BPF_JSET) {
- /* Adjust for and */
- rvoff -= 4;
- emit(rv_and(rs, rd, rs), ctx);
- emit_branch(BPF_JNE, rs, RV_REG_ZERO, rvoff, ctx);
+ case BPF_JMP | BPF_JSET | BPF_K:
+ case BPF_JMP32 | BPF_JSET | BPF_K:
+ rvoff = rv_offset(i, off, ctx);
+ s = ctx->ninsns;
+ if (is_12b_int(imm)) {
+ emit(rv_andi(RV_REG_T1, rd, imm), ctx);
} else {
- emit_branch(BPF_OP(code), rd, rs, rvoff, ctx);
+ emit_imm(RV_REG_T1, imm, ctx);
+ emit(rv_and(RV_REG_T1, rd, RV_REG_T1), ctx);
}
+ /* For jset32, we should clear the upper 32 bits of t1, but
+ * sign-extension is sufficient here and saves one instruction,
+ * as t1 is used only in comparison against zero.
+ */
+ if (!is64 && imm < 0)
+ emit(rv_addiw(RV_REG_T1, RV_REG_T1, 0), ctx);
+ e = ctx->ninsns;
+ rvoff -= (e - s) << 2;
+ emit_branch(BPF_JNE, RV_REG_T1, RV_REG_ZERO, rvoff, ctx);
break;
/* function call */
--
2.17.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists