Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-173157-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
From: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@kernel.org>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>, Alexei Starovoitov
 <ast@kernel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>, Andrii Nakryiko
 <andrii@kernel.org>, Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>, "Eduard
 Zingerman" <eddyz87@gmail.com>, Song Liu <song@kernel.org>, Yonghong Song
 <yonghong.song@linux.dev>, 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>, "Naveen N. Rao"
 <naveen.n.rao@linux.ibm.com>, Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
 Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>, "Aneesh Kumar K.V"
 <aneesh.kumar@kernel.org>, Hari Bathini <hbathini@linux.ibm.com>,
 bpf@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf] powerpc/bpf: enforce full ordering for ATOMIC
 operations with BPF_FETCH
In-Reply-To: <87o79gopuj.fsf@mail.lhotse>
References: <20240507175439.119467-1-puranjay@kernel.org>
 <87o79gopuj.fsf@mail.lhotse>
Date: Wed, 08 May 2024 11:39:05 +0000
Message-ID: <mb61pwmo4zg6e.fsf@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> writes:

> Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@kernel.org> writes:
>> The Linux Kernel Memory Model [1][2] requires RMW operations that have a
>> return value to be fully ordered.
>>
>> BPF atomic operations with BPF_FETCH (including BPF_XCHG and
>> BPF_CMPXCHG) return a value back so they need to be JITed to fully
>> ordered operations. POWERPC currently emits relaxed operations for
>> these.
>
> Thanks for catching this.
>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c
>> index 2f39c50ca729..b635e5344e8a 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c
>> @@ -853,6 +853,15 @@ int bpf_jit_build_body(struct bpf_prog *fp, u32 *image, u32 *fimage, struct code
>>  			/* Get offset into TMP_REG */
>>  			EMIT(PPC_RAW_LI(tmp_reg, off));
>>  			tmp_idx = ctx->idx * 4;
>> +			/*
>> +			 * Enforce full ordering for operations with BPF_FETCH by emitting a 'sync'
>> +			 * before and after the operation.
>> +			 *
>> +			 * This is a requirement in the Linux Kernel Memory Model.
>> +			 * See __cmpxchg_u64() in asm/cmpxchg.h as an example.
>> +			 */
>> +			if (imm & BPF_FETCH)
>> +				EMIT(PPC_RAW_SYNC());
>>  			/* load value from memory into r0 */
>>  			EMIT(PPC_RAW_LWARX(_R0, tmp_reg, dst_reg, 0));
>>  
>> @@ -905,6 +914,8 @@ int bpf_jit_build_body(struct bpf_prog *fp, u32 *image, u32 *fimage, struct code
>>  
>>  			/* For the BPF_FETCH variant, get old data into src_reg */
>>  			if (imm & BPF_FETCH) {
>> +				/* Emit 'sync' to enforce full ordering */
>> +				EMIT(PPC_RAW_SYNC());
>>  				EMIT(PPC_RAW_MR(ret_reg, ax_reg));
>>  				if (!fp->aux->verifier_zext)
>>  					EMIT(PPC_RAW_LI(ret_reg - 1, 0)); /* higher 32-bit */
>
> On 32-bit there are non-SMP systems where those syncs will probably be expensive.
>
> I think just adding an IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SMP) around the syncs is
> probably sufficient. Christophe?

Yes, I should do it for both 32-bit and 64-bit because the kernel does
that as well:

In POWERPC __atomic_pre/post_full_fence resolves to 'sync' in case of
CONFIG_SMP and barrier() in case of !CONFIG_SMP.

barrier() is not relevant for JITs as it is used at compile time.

So, I will use

if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SMP))
        EMIT(PPC_RAW_SYNC());

in the next version.


Thanks,
Puranjay