[PATCH bpf-next v3 6/8] s390/bpf: Implement bpf_jit_supports_kfunc_call()

Ilya Leoshkevich
2023-01-29T19:05:34Z

Implement calling kernel functions from eBPF. In general, the eBPF ABI
is fairly close to that of s390x, with one important difference: on
s390x callers should sign-extend signed arguments. Handle that by using
information returned by bpf_jit_find_kfunc_model().

Here is an example of how sign extensions works. Suppose we need to
call the following function from BPF:

; long noinline bpf_kfunc_call_test4(signed char a, short b, int c,
long d)
0000000000936a78 <bpf_kfunc_call_test4>:
936a78: c0 04 00 00 00 00 jgnop bpf_kfunc_call_test4
; return (long)a + (long)b + (long)c + d;
936a7e: b9 08 00 45 agr %r4,%r5
936a82: b9 08 00 43 agr %r4,%r3
936a86: b9 08 00 24 agr %r2,%r4
936a8a: c0 f4 00 1e 3b 27 jg <__s390_indirect_jump_r14>

As per the s390x ABI, bpf_kfunc_call_test4() has the right to assume
that a, b and c are sign-extended by the caller, which results in using
64-bit additions (agr) without any additional conversions. Without sign
extension we would have the following on the JITed code side:

; tmp = bpf_kfunc_call_test4(-3, -30, -200, -1000);
; 5: b4 10 00 00 ff ff ff fd w1 = -3
0x3ff7fdcdad4: llilf %r2,0xfffffffd
; 6: b4 20 00 00 ff ff ff e2 w2 = -30
0x3ff7fdcdada: llilf %r3,0xffffffe2
; 7: b4 30 00 00 ff ff ff 38 w3 = -200
0x3ff7fdcdae0: llilf %r4,0xffffff38
; 8: b7 40 00 00 ff ff fc 18 r4 = -1000
0x3ff7fdcdae6: lgfi %r5,-1000
0x3ff7fdcdaec: mvc 64(4,%r15),160(%r15)
0x3ff7fdcdaf2: lgrl %r1,bpf_kfunc_call_test4@GOT
0x3ff7fdcdaf8: brasl %r14,__s390_indirect_jump_r1

This first 3 llilfs are 32-bit loads, that need to be sign-extended
to 64 bits.

Note: at the moment bpf_jit_find_kfunc_model() does not seem to play
nicely with XDP metadata functions: add_kfunc_call() adds an "abstract"
bpf_*() version to kfunc_btf_tab, but then fixup_kfunc_call() puts the
concrete version into insn->imm, which bpf_jit_find_kfunc_model() cannot
find. But this seems to be a common code problem.

Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>
---
arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
index b84c7ddb758a..d0846ba818ee 100644
--- a/arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
+++ b/arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
@@ -1401,9 +1401,10 @@ static noinline int bpf_jit_insn(struct bpf_jit *jit, struct bpf_prog *fp,
*/
case BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL:
{
- u64 func;
+ const struct btf_func_model *m;
bool func_addr_fixed;
- int ret;
+ int j, ret;
+ u64 func;

ret = bpf_jit_get_func_addr(fp, insn, extra_pass,
&func, &func_addr_fixed);
@@ -1425,6 +1426,21 @@ static noinline int bpf_jit_insn(struct bpf_jit *jit, struct bpf_prog *fp,
/* mvc STK_OFF_TCCNT(4,%r15),N(%r15) */
_EMIT6(0xd203f000 | STK_OFF_TCCNT,
0xf000 | (STK_OFF_TCCNT + STK_OFF + stack_depth));
+
+ /* Sign-extend the kfunc arguments. */
+ if (insn->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL) {
+ m = bpf_jit_find_kfunc_model(fp, insn);
+ if (!m)
+ return -1;
+
+ for (j = 0; j < m->nr_args; j++) {
+ if (sign_extend(jit, BPF_REG_1 + j,
+ m->arg_size[j],
+ m->arg_flags[j]))
+ return -1;
+ }
+ }
+
/* lgrl %w1,func */
EMIT6_PCREL_RILB(0xc4080000, REG_W1, _EMIT_CONST_U64(func));
/* %r1() */
@@ -1980,6 +1996,11 @@ struct bpf_prog *bpf_int_jit_compile(struct bpf_prog *fp)
return fp;
}

+bool bpf_jit_supports_kfunc_call(void)
+{
+ return true;
+}
+
int bpf_arch_text_poke(void *ip, enum bpf_text_poke_type t,
void *old_addr, void *new_addr)
{
--
2.39.1