From: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>,
kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v2 09/12] bpf, arm64: Move kfunc arguments into the arm64 calling convention
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2026 23:26:10 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260909062610.4008921-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260909062522.4001896-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Do proper move from bpf calling convention to arm64 calling convention
to satisfy native requirement. AAPCS64 only ever moves an argument to a
higher slot, so the moves need one scratch register to carry an eightbyte
from one stack slot to another, and never the one a convention moving an
argument down would need.
In addition, the arena argument walk counts eightbytes rather than
parameters, as an argument may take two registers. The walk takes the
func model from the caller now, as the moves need it too, and runs first
so that they carry the rebased value.
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
---
arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 77 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 67 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
index 3aa3ea0bc30b..bdac930dbdec 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
@@ -1220,6 +1220,12 @@ static int add_exception_handler(const struct bpf_insn *insn,
return 0;
}
+static const struct bpf_jit_arg_abi arm64_arg_abi = {
+ .nr_arg_regs = 8,
+ .even_reg_align = true,
+ .even_stack_align = true,
+};
+
static const u8 stack_arg_reg[] = { A64_R(5), A64_R(6), A64_R(7) };
#define NR_STACK_ARG_REGS ARRAY_SIZE(stack_arg_reg)
@@ -1262,19 +1268,20 @@ static void emit_stack_arg_store_imm(s32 imm, s16 bpf_off, const u8 tmp, struct
* kern_vm_start. A nullable arg preserves NULL by skipping the add, tested
* on the truncated value as arena NULL is offset 0.
*/
-static int emit_kfunc_arena_args(struct jit_ctx *ctx, const struct bpf_insn *insn)
+static int emit_kfunc_arena_args(struct jit_ctx *ctx, const struct btf_func_model *fm)
{
const u8 arena_vm_base = bpf2a64[ARENA_VM_START];
- const struct btf_func_model *fm;
- int i;
-
- fm = bpf_jit_find_kfunc_model(ctx->prog, insn);
- if (!fm)
- return -EINVAL;
+ int i, slot;
- for (i = 0; i < min_t(int, fm->nr_args, MAX_BPF_FUNC_REG_ARGS); i++) {
- const u8 reg = bpf2a64[BPF_REG_1 + i];
+ for (i = 0, slot = 0; i < fm->nr_args; i++) {
+ u32 arg_regs = (fm->arg_size[i] + 7) / 8;
u8 flags = fm->arg_flags[i];
+ u8 reg;
+
+ if (slot + arg_regs > MAX_BPF_FUNC_REG_ARGS)
+ break;
+ reg = bpf2a64[BPF_REG_1 + slot];
+ slot += arg_regs;
if (!(flags & BTF_FMODEL_ARENA_ARG))
continue;
@@ -1293,6 +1300,45 @@ static int emit_kfunc_arena_args(struct jit_ctx *ctx, const struct bpf_insn *ins
return 0;
}
+static bool a64_arg_on_stack(u8 slot)
+{
+ return slot >= arm64_arg_abi.nr_arg_regs;
+}
+
+static s32 a64_arg_stack_off(u8 slot)
+{
+ return (slot - arm64_arg_abi.nr_arg_regs) * sizeof(u64);
+}
+
+/*
+ * AAPCS64 only ever moves an argument to a higher slot, so the planner asks
+ * for the scratch only to carry an eightbyte from one stack slot to another.
+ */
+static void emit_kfunc_arg_moves(struct jit_ctx *ctx, const struct btf_func_model *fm)
+{
+ struct bpf_jit_arg_move moves[BPF_JIT_MAX_ARG_MOVES];
+ const u8 tmp = bpf2a64[TMP_REG_1];
+ u32 i, n;
+
+ n = bpf_jit_plan_arg_moves(&arm64_arg_abi, fm, moves);
+
+ for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
+ u8 dst = moves[i].dst, src = moves[i].src, reg;
+
+ if (a64_arg_on_stack(src)) {
+ reg = a64_arg_on_stack(dst) ? tmp : dst;
+ emit(A64_LDR64I(reg, A64_SP, a64_arg_stack_off(src)), ctx);
+ } else {
+ reg = src;
+ }
+
+ if (a64_arg_on_stack(dst))
+ emit(A64_STR64I(reg, A64_SP, a64_arg_stack_off(dst)), ctx);
+ else if (reg != dst)
+ emit(A64_MOV(1, dst, reg), ctx);
+ }
+}
+
/* JITs an eBPF instruction.
* Returns:
* 0 - successfully JITed an 8-byte eBPF instruction.
@@ -1716,9 +1762,15 @@ static int build_insn(const struct bpf_verifier_env *env, const struct bpf_insn
if (ret < 0)
return ret;
if (insn->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL) {
- ret = emit_kfunc_arena_args(ctx, insn);
+ const struct btf_func_model *fm;
+
+ fm = bpf_jit_find_kfunc_model(ctx->prog, insn);
+ if (!fm)
+ return -EINVAL;
+ ret = emit_kfunc_arena_args(ctx, fm);
if (ret < 0)
return ret;
+ emit_kfunc_arg_moves(ctx, fm);
}
emit_call(func_addr, ctx);
/*
@@ -2393,6 +2445,11 @@ bool bpf_jit_supports_kfunc_ret_reg_pair(void)
return true;
}
+const struct bpf_jit_arg_abi *bpf_jit_arg_abi(void)
+{
+ return &arm64_arg_abi;
+}
+
bool bpf_jit_supports_stack_args(void)
{
return true;
--
2.53.0-Meta
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-09 6:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-09 6:25 [PATCH bpf-next v2 00/12] bpf: Support by-value struct and __int128 arguments Yonghong Song
2026-09-09 6:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 01/12] selftests/bpf: Add a test for an __int128 by-value argument Yonghong Song
2026-09-09 7:13 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-11 4:25 ` Yonghong Song
2026-09-09 6:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 02/12] bpf: Index global function arguments by argument slot Yonghong Song
2026-09-09 7:13 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-11 4:27 ` Yonghong Song
2026-09-09 6:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 03/12] bpf: Support by-value struct arguments up to 16 bytes Yonghong Song
2026-09-09 7:13 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-11 4:29 ` Yonghong Song
2026-09-09 6:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 04/12] bpf: Support __int128 as a by-value function argument Yonghong Song
2026-09-09 6:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 05/12] bpf: Rename bpf_call_summary::num_params to arg_slot_cnt Yonghong Song
2026-09-09 6:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 06/12] bpf: Recognize by-value struct and __int128 kfunc arguments Yonghong Song
2026-09-09 6:46 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-11 4:31 ` Yonghong Song
2026-09-09 6:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 07/12] bpf: Prepare kfunc arguments for the JIT from an ABI description Yonghong Song
2026-09-09 6:46 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-11 5:05 ` Yonghong Song
2026-09-09 6:26 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 08/12] bpf, x86: Move kfunc arguments into the x86-64 calling convention Yonghong Song
2026-09-09 7:29 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-11 5:32 ` Yonghong Song
2026-09-09 6:26 ` Yonghong Song [this message]
2026-09-09 7:30 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 09/12] bpf, arm64: Move kfunc arguments into the arm64 " bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-11 5:34 ` Yonghong Song
2026-09-09 6:26 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 10/12] selftests/bpf: Add C tests for by-value arguments up to 16 bytes Yonghong Song
2026-09-09 6:26 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 11/12] selftests/bpf: Add inline-asm tests for by-value arguments Yonghong Song
2026-09-09 7:30 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-11 5:37 ` Yonghong Song
2026-09-09 6:26 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 12/12] selftests/bpf: Add tests for by-value kfunc arguments Yonghong Song
2026-09-09 7:30 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-11 5:57 ` Yonghong Song
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=20260909062610.4008921-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev \
--to=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
/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