RE: [PATCH v3 3/6] bpf/arm64: fix offset type to allow a negative jump

[Marat Khalili <marat.khalili@huawei.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
> Sent: Sunday 21 June 2026 17:24
> To: dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Christophe Fontaine <cfontain@redhat.com>; stable@dpdk.org; Stephen Hemminger
> <stephen@networkplumber.org>; Wathsala Vithanage <wathsala.vithanage@arm.com>; Konstantin Ananyev
> <konstantin.ananyev@huawei.com>; Marat Khalili <marat.khalili@huawei.com>; Jerin Jacob
> <jerinj@marvell.com>
> Subject: [PATCH v3 3/6] bpf/arm64: fix offset type to allow a negative jump
> 
> From: Christophe Fontaine <cfontain@redhat.com>
> 
> The DPDK BPF JIT standalone test test_ld_mbuf1 fails on arm64.
> It does:
> 	r6 = r1                    // mbuf
> 	r0 = *(u8 *)pkt[0]         // BPF_ABS
> 	if ((r0 & 0xf0) == 0x40)
> 		goto parse
> 	r0 = 0
> 	exit                       // epilogue E0
> parse:
> 	r0 = *(u8 *)pkt[r0 + 3]    // BPF_IND
> 	...
> 	exit
> 
> emit_return_zero_if_src_zero() returns 0 by branching to a function
> epilogue. The target maybe a previous epilogue so branch
> might be backwards; therefore the offset needs to be negative.
> 
> The offset was stored in a uint16_t, so a negative value wrapped to a
> large positive number; emit_b() then branched past the end of the
> program and faulted at run time.
> 
> Fixes: 111e2a747a4f ("bpf/arm: add basic arithmetic operations")
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> 
> Signed-off-by: Christophe Fontaine <cfontain@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
> ---
>  lib/bpf/bpf_jit_arm64.c | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/bpf/bpf_jit_arm64.c b/lib/bpf/bpf_jit_arm64.c
> index a04ef33a9c..67e42015de 100644
> --- a/lib/bpf/bpf_jit_arm64.c
> +++ b/lib/bpf/bpf_jit_arm64.c
> @@ -957,10 +957,12 @@ static void
>  emit_return_zero_if_src_zero(struct a64_jit_ctx *ctx, bool is64, uint8_t src)
>  {
>  	uint8_t r0 = ebpf_to_a64_reg(ctx, EBPF_REG_0);
> -	uint16_t jump_to_epilogue;
> +	int32_t jump_to_epilogue;
> 
>  	emit_cbnz(ctx, is64, src, 3);
>  	emit_mov_imm(ctx, is64, r0, 0);
> +
> +	/* maybe backwards branch to earlier epilogue */
>  	jump_to_epilogue = (ctx->program_start + ctx->program_sz) - ctx->idx;
>  	emit_b(ctx, jump_to_epilogue);
>  }
> --
> 2.53.0

I still wish it was not called program_sz here, but the fix is not wrong, so

Acked-by: Marat Khalili <marat.khalili@huawei.com>