Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 16 Dec 2020 22:11:33 -0800
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
To:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
Cc:     Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>, ast@kernel.org,
        daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org, kafai@fb.com,
        songliubraving@fb.com, yhs@fb.com, john.fastabend@gmail.com,
        kpsingh@chromium.org, naveen.n.rao@linux.ibm.com,
        sandipan@linux.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 7/7] powerpc/bpf: Implement extended BPF on PPC32
Message-ID: <20201217061133.lnfnhbzvikgtjb3i@ast-mbp>
References: <cover.1608112796.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
 <1fed5e11ba08ee28d12f3f57986e5b143a6aa937.1608112797.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1fed5e11ba08ee28d12f3f57986e5b143a6aa937.1608112797.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 10:07:37AM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> Implement Extended Berkeley Packet Filter on Powerpc 32
> 
> Test result with test_bpf module:
> 
> 	test_bpf: Summary: 378 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [354/366 JIT'ed]

nice!

> Registers mapping:
> 
> 	[BPF_REG_0] = r11-r12
> 	/* function arguments */
> 	[BPF_REG_1] = r3-r4
> 	[BPF_REG_2] = r5-r6
> 	[BPF_REG_3] = r7-r8
> 	[BPF_REG_4] = r9-r10
> 	[BPF_REG_5] = r21-r22 (Args 9 and 10 come in via the stack)
> 	/* non volatile registers */
> 	[BPF_REG_6] = r23-r24
> 	[BPF_REG_7] = r25-r26
> 	[BPF_REG_8] = r27-r28
> 	[BPF_REG_9] = r29-r30
> 	/* frame pointer aka BPF_REG_10 */
> 	[BPF_REG_FP] = r31
> 	/* eBPF jit internal registers */
> 	[BPF_REG_AX] = r19-r20
> 	[TMP_REG] = r18
> 
> As PPC32 doesn't have a redzone in the stack,
> use r17 as tail call counter.
> 
> r0 is used as temporary register as much as possible. It is referenced
> directly in the code in order to avoid misuse of it, because some
> instructions interpret it as value 0 instead of register r0
> (ex: addi, addis, stw, lwz, ...)
> 
> The following operations are not implemented:
> 
> 		case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_DIV | BPF_X: /* dst /= src */
> 		case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOD | BPF_X: /* dst %= src */
> 		case BPF_STX | BPF_XADD | BPF_DW: /* *(u64 *)(dst + off) += src */
> 
> The following operations are only implemented for power of two constants:
> 
> 		case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOD | BPF_K: /* dst %= imm */
> 		case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_DIV | BPF_K: /* dst /= imm */

Those are sensible limitations. MOD and DIV are rare, but XADD is common.
Please consider doing it as a cmpxchg loop in the future.

Also please run test_progs. It will give a lot better coverage than test_bpf.ko