Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-108468-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240313140205.3191564-1-asavkov@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240313140205.3191564-1-asavkov@redhat.com>
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 22:59:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CAADnVQKgkz=gUHbPc0-hcAcirzUe-mYhioACNpORuXGS6-moaA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] arm64: bpf: zero upper bits after rev32
To: Artem Savkov <asavkov@redhat.com>, Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@gmail.com>
Cc: Xi Wang <xi.wang@gmail.com>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, 
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>, 
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, 
	Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 7:02=E2=80=AFAM Artem Savkov <asavkov@redhat.com> w=
rote:
>
> Commit d63903bbc30c7 ("arm64: bpf: fix endianness conversion bugs")
> added upper bits zeroing to byteswap operations, but it assumes they
> will be already zeroed after rev32, which is not the case on some
> systems at least:
>
> [ 9757.262607] test_bpf: #312 BSWAP 16: 0x0123456789abcdef -> 0xefcd jite=
d:1 8 PASS
> [ 9757.264435] test_bpf: #313 BSWAP 32: 0x0123456789abcdef -> 0xefcdab89 =
jited:1 ret 1460850314 !=3D -271733879 (0x5712ce8a !=3D 0xefcdab89)FAIL (1 =
times)
> [ 9757.266260] test_bpf: #314 BSWAP 64: 0x0123456789abcdef -> 0x67452301 =
jited:1 8 PASS
> [ 9757.268000] test_bpf: #315 BSWAP 64: 0x0123456789abcdef >> 32 -> 0xefc=
dab89 jited:1 8 PASS
> [ 9757.269686] test_bpf: #316 BSWAP 16: 0xfedcba9876543210 -> 0x1032 jite=
d:1 8 PASS
> [ 9757.271380] test_bpf: #317 BSWAP 32: 0xfedcba9876543210 -> 0x10325476 =
jited:1 ret -1460850316 !=3D 271733878 (0xa8ed3174 !=3D 0x10325476)FAIL (1 =
times)
> [ 9757.273022] test_bpf: #318 BSWAP 64: 0xfedcba9876543210 -> 0x98badcfe =
jited:1 7 PASS
> [ 9757.274721] test_bpf: #319 BSWAP 64: 0xfedcba9876543210 >> 32 -> 0x103=
25476 jited:1 9 PASS
>
> Fixes: d63903bbc30c7 ("arm64: bpf: fix endianness conversion bugs")
> Signed-off-by: Artem Savkov <asavkov@redhat.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.=
c
> index c5b461dda4385..e86e5ba74dca2 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> @@ -944,7 +944,8 @@ static int build_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, st=
ruct jit_ctx *ctx,
>                         break;
>                 case 32:
>                         emit(A64_REV32(is64, dst, dst), ctx);
> -                       /* upper 32 bits already cleared */
> +                       /* zero-extend 32 bits into 64 bits */
> +                       emit(A64_UXTW(is64, dst, dst), ctx);

What does arm64 ISA say about rev32?
Since rev16 is special, it kinda makes sense, but still.

Puranjay,
could you please help review this fix?