netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: arm64: Redefine MOV consistent with arch insn

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:   Wed, 31 Mar 2021 10:28:44 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To:     Jianlin Lv <iecedge@...il.com>
Cc:     Jianlin Lv <Jianlin.Lv@....com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        zlim.lnx@...il.com, catalin.marinas@....com,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: arm64: Redefine MOV consistent with arch
 insn

On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 05:22:18PM +0800, Jianlin Lv wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 5:31 PM Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 03:42:35PM +0800, Jianlin Lv wrote:
> > > A64_MOV is currently mapped to Add Instruction. Architecturally MOV
> > > (register) is an alias of ORR (shifted register) and MOV (to or from SP)
> > > is an alias of ADD (immediate).
> > > This patch redefines A64_MOV and uses existing functionality
> > > aarch64_insn_gen_move_reg() in insn.c to encode MOV (register) instruction.
> > > For moving between register and stack pointer, rename macro to A64_MOV_SP.
> >
> > What does this gain us? There's no requirement for a BPF "MOV" to match an
> > arm64 architectural "MOV", so what's the up-side of aligning them like this?
> 
> According to the description in the Arm Software Optimization Guide,
> Arithmetic(basic) and Logical(basic) instructions have the same
> Exec Latency and Execution Throughput.
> This change did not bring about a performance improvement.
> The original intention was to make the instruction map more 'natively'.

I think we should leave the code as-is, then. Having a separate MOV_SP
macro s confusing and, worse, I worry that somebody passing A64_SP to
A64_MOV will end up using the zero register.

Will