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: [bpf-next v3 03/12] bpf, x86, riscv, arm: no_caller_saved_registers for bpf_get_smp_processor_id()
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 16:01:52 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240715230201.3901423-4-eddyz87@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240715230201.3901423-1-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 5241ba671c5a..e7b4c059ebaf 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 163b6b0f2fa7..438daf36a694 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -16014,7 +16014,14 @@ 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.
@@ -20716,7 +20723,7 @@ 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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-07-15 23:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-07-15 23:01 [bpf-next v3 00/12] no_caller_saved_registers attribute for helper calls Eduard Zingerman
2024-07-15 23:01 ` [bpf-next v3 01/12] bpf: add a get_helper_proto() utility function Eduard Zingerman
2024-07-15 23:01 ` [bpf-next v3 02/12] bpf: no_caller_saved_registers attribute for helper calls Eduard Zingerman
2024-07-16 1:51 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2024-07-16 5:34 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-07-20 2:00 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2024-07-22 18:42 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-07-15 23:01 ` Eduard Zingerman [this message]
2024-07-15 23:01 ` [bpf-next v3 04/12] selftests/bpf: extract utility function for BPF disassembly Eduard Zingerman
2024-07-15 23:01 ` [bpf-next v3 05/12] selftests/bpf: print correct offset for pseudo calls in disasm_insn() Eduard Zingerman
2024-07-15 23:01 ` [bpf-next v3 06/12] selftests/bpf: no need to track next_match_pos in struct test_loader Eduard Zingerman
2024-07-15 23:01 ` [bpf-next v3 07/12] selftests/bpf: extract test_loader->expect_msgs as a data structure Eduard Zingerman
2024-07-15 23:01 ` [bpf-next v3 08/12] selftests/bpf: allow checking xlated programs in verifier_* tests Eduard Zingerman
2024-07-15 23:01 ` [bpf-next v3 09/12] selftests/bpf: __arch_* macro to limit test cases to specific archs Eduard Zingerman
2024-07-15 23:01 ` [bpf-next v3 10/12] selftests/bpf: test no_caller_saved_registers spill/fill removal Eduard Zingerman
2024-07-15 23:02 ` [bpf-next v3 11/12] bpf: do check_nocsr_stack_contract() for ARG_ANYTHING helper params Eduard Zingerman
2024-07-16 2:00 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2024-07-16 10:03 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-07-16 18:15 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-07-20 1:54 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2024-07-20 1:58 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-07-15 23:02 ` [bpf-next v3 12/12] selftests/bpf: check nocsr contract for bpf_probe_read_kernel() Eduard Zingerman
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=20240715230201.3901423-4-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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox