netdev - Re: Re: [PATCH RESEND bpf-next v3 4/6] riscv, bpf: Add necessary Zbb instructions

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: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 12:43:04 +0100
From: Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>
To: Björn Töpel <bjorn@...nel.org>
Cc: Pu Lehui <pulehui@...weicloud.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, 
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, 
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>, 
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, 
	Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, 
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>, Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>, 
	Luke Nelson <luke.r.nels@...il.com>, Pu Lehui <pulehui@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH RESEND bpf-next v3 4/6] riscv, bpf: Add necessary Zbb
 instructions

On Sat, Jan 27, 2024 at 06:16:41PM +0100, Björn Töpel wrote:
> Pu Lehui <pulehui@...weicloud.com> writes:
> 
> > From: Pu Lehui <pulehui@...wei.com>
> >
> > Add necessary Zbb instructions introduced by [0] to reduce code size and
> > improve performance of RV64 JIT. Meanwhile, a runtime deteted helper is
> > added to check whether the CPU supports Zbb instructions.
> >
> > Link: https://github.com/riscv/riscv-bitmanip/releases/download/1.0.0/bitmanip-1.0.0-38-g865e7a7.pdf [0]
> > Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@...wei.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 32 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h
> > index e30501b46f8f..51f6d214086f 100644
> > --- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h
> > +++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h
> > @@ -18,6 +18,11 @@ static inline bool rvc_enabled(void)
> >  	return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_C);
> >  }
> >  
> > +static inline bool rvzbb_enabled(void)
> > +{
> > +	return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_ZBB) && riscv_has_extension_likely(RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZBB);
> 
> Hmm, I'm thinking about the IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_ZBB) semantics
> for a kernel JIT compiler.
> 
> IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_ZBB) affects the kernel compiler flags.
> Should it be enough to just have the run-time check? Should a kernel
> built w/o Zbb be able to emit Zbb from the JIT?
>

My two cents (which might be worth less than two cents due to my lack of
BPF knowledge) is yes, the JIT should be allowed to emit Zbb instructions
even when the kernel is not built with a compiler which has done so. In
fact, we have insn-def.h for situations similar to this.

Thanks,
drew