All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org
Cc: andrii@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, martin.lau@linux.dev,
	kernel-team@fb.com, yonghong.song@linux.dev,
	jose.marchesi@oracle.com, Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v4 03/10] bpf, x86, riscv, arm: no_caller_saved_registers for bpf_get_smp_processor_id()
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2024 16:38:37 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240722233844.1406874-4-eddyz87@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240722233844.1406874-1-eddyz87@gmail.com>

The function bpf_get_smp_processor_id() is processed in a different
way, depending on the arch:
- on x86 verifier replaces call to bpf_get_smp_processor_id() with a
  sequence of instructions that modify only r0;
- on riscv64 jit replaces call to bpf_get_smp_processor_id() with a
  sequence of instructions that modify only r0;
- on arm64 jit replaces call to bpf_get_smp_processor_id() with a
  sequence of instructions that modify only r0 and tmp registers.

These rewrites satisfy attribute no_caller_saved_registers contract.
Allow rewrite of no_caller_saved_registers patterns for
bpf_get_smp_processor_id() in order to use this function as a canary
for no_caller_saved_registers tests.

Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
---
 kernel/bpf/helpers.c  |  1 +
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 11 +++++++++--
 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
index b5f0adae8293..d02ae323996b 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
@@ -158,6 +158,7 @@ const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_get_smp_processor_id_proto = {
 	.func		= bpf_get_smp_processor_id,
 	.gpl_only	= false,
 	.ret_type	= RET_INTEGER,
+	.allow_nocsr	= true,
 };
 
 BPF_CALL_0(bpf_get_numa_node_id)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 1b2845eca539..1a5dda4142b7 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -16043,7 +16043,14 @@ static u32 helper_nocsr_clobber_mask(const struct bpf_func_proto *fn)
  */
 static bool verifier_inlines_helper_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, s32 imm)
 {
-	return false;
+	switch (imm) {
+#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
+	case BPF_FUNC_get_smp_processor_id:
+		return env->prog->jit_requested && bpf_jit_supports_percpu_insn();
+#endif
+	default:
+		return false;
+	}
 }
 
 /* GCC and LLVM define a no_caller_saved_registers function attribute.
@@ -20747,7 +20754,7 @@ static int do_misc_fixups(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
 #if defined(CONFIG_X86_64) && !defined(CONFIG_UML)
 		/* Implement bpf_get_smp_processor_id() inline. */
 		if (insn->imm == BPF_FUNC_get_smp_processor_id &&
-		    prog->jit_requested && bpf_jit_supports_percpu_insn()) {
+		    verifier_inlines_helper_call(env, insn->imm)) {
 			/* BPF_FUNC_get_smp_processor_id inlining is an
 			 * optimization, so if pcpu_hot.cpu_number is ever
 			 * changed in some incompatible and hard to support
-- 
2.45.2


  parent reply	other threads:[~2024-07-22 23:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-07-22 23:38 [PATCH bpf-next v4 00/10] no_caller_saved_registers attribute for helper calls Eduard Zingerman
2024-07-22 23:38 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 01/10] bpf: add a get_helper_proto() utility function Eduard Zingerman
2024-07-22 23:38 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 02/10] bpf: no_caller_saved_registers attribute for helper calls Eduard Zingerman
2024-07-22 23:38 ` Eduard Zingerman [this message]
2024-07-22 23:38 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 04/10] selftests/bpf: extract utility function for BPF disassembly Eduard Zingerman
2024-07-22 23:38 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 05/10] selftests/bpf: print correct offset for pseudo calls in disasm_insn() Eduard Zingerman
2024-07-22 23:38 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 06/10] selftests/bpf: no need to track next_match_pos in struct test_loader Eduard Zingerman
2024-07-22 23:38 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 07/10] selftests/bpf: extract test_loader->expect_msgs as a data structure Eduard Zingerman
2024-07-22 23:38 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 08/10] selftests/bpf: allow checking xlated programs in verifier_* tests Eduard Zingerman
2024-07-22 23:38 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 09/10] selftests/bpf: __arch_* macro to limit test cases to specific archs Eduard Zingerman
2024-07-22 23:38 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 10/10] selftests/bpf: test no_caller_saved_registers spill/fill removal Eduard Zingerman
2024-07-23  0:36 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 00/10] no_caller_saved_registers attribute for helper calls bot+bpf-ci
2024-07-23  1:18 ` bot+bpf-ci
2024-07-23  2:42 ` bot+bpf-ci
2024-07-24  3:52 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2024-07-24  4:00 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20240722233844.1406874-4-eddyz87@gmail.com \
    --to=eddyz87@gmail.com \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=jose.marchesi@oracle.com \
    --cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
    --cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
    --cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.