Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <85c21f52-2059-f6bb-bbc1-d610cb107995@huaweicloud.com>
Date:   Fri, 2 Dec 2022 17:58:03 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.3.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf] riscv, bpf: Emit fixed-length imm64 for
 BPF_PSEUDO_FUNC
Content-Language: en-US
To:     =?UTF-8?B?QmrDtnJuIFTDtnBlbA==?= <bjorn@kernel.org>,
        bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
        Song Liu <song@kernel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>,
        Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
        Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
References: <20221130033806.2967822-1-pulehui@huaweicloud.com>
 <87h6yg1xlo.fsf@all.your.base.are.belong.to.us>
From:   Pu Lehui <pulehui@huaweicloud.com>
In-Reply-To: <87h6yg1xlo.fsf@all.your.base.are.belong.to.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk


On 2022/11/30 19:38, Björn Töpel wrote:
> Pu Lehui <pulehui@huaweicloud.com> writes:
> 
>> From: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
>>
>> For BPF_PSEUDO_FUNC instruction, verifier will refill imm with
>> correct addresses of bpf_calls and then run last pass of JIT.
>> Since the emit_imm of RV64 is variable-length, which will emit
>> appropriate length instructions accorroding to the imm, it may
>> broke ctx->offset, and lead to unpredictable problem, such as
>> inaccurate jump. So let's fix it with fixed-length imm64 insns.
> 
> Ah, nice one! So, the the invariant doesn't hold (the image grow in the
> last pass).
> 
>> Fixes: 69c087ba6225 ("bpf: Add bpf_for_each_map_elem() helper")
> 
> This is odd? This can't be the right Fixes-tag...
> 

Only BPF_PSEUDO_FUNC instruction need extra jit pass after refill imm in 
jit_subprogs. Others, like bpf helper call, will update ctx->offset in 
jit iterations. So the fixes-tag is 69c087ba6225.

>> Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>   arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>   1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
>> index eb99df41fa33..f984d5fa014b 100644
>> --- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
>> +++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
>> @@ -139,6 +139,30 @@ static bool in_auipc_jalr_range(s64 val)
>>   		val < ((1L << 31) - (1L << 11));
>>   }
>>   
>> +/* Emit fixed-length instructions for 32-bit imm */
>> +static void emit_fixed_imm32(u8 rd, s32 val, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
>> +{
>> +	s32 upper = (val + (1U << 11)) >> 12;
>> +	s32 lower = ((val & 0xfff) << 20) >> 20;
>> +
>> +	emit(rv_lui(rd, upper), ctx);
>> +	emit(rv_addi(rd, rd, lower), ctx);
>> +}
>> +
>> +/* Emit fixed-length instructions for 64-bit imm */
>> +static void emit_fixed_imm64(u8 rd, s64 val, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
>> +{
>> +	/* Compensation for sign-extension of rv_addi */
>> +	s32 imm_hi = (val + (1U << 31)) >> 32;
>> +	s32 imm_lo = val;
>> +
>> +	emit_fixed_imm32(rd, imm_hi, ctx);
>> +	emit_fixed_imm32(RV_REG_T1, imm_lo, ctx);
>> +	emit(rv_slli(rd, rd, 32), ctx);
>> +	emit(rv_add(rd, rd, RV_REG_T1), ctx);
>> +}
> 
> Hmm, will this really be fixed? We can end up with compressed
> instructions, which can then be a non-compressed in the last pass, and
> we have the same problem?
> 
> The range of valid address for RV64 (sv39 to sv57) are
> 0xffffffff00000000 to 0xffffffffffffffff, so I think we can do better
> than 6 insn, no? My gut feeling (I need to tinker a bit) is that 4
> should be sufficient.
> 
> Note that worst case for a imm64 load are 8 instructions, but this is
> not the general case.
> 
> 
> Björn