* [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/3] bpf, arm64: Map BPF_REG_0 to x8 instead of x7
2026-04-27 23:47 [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/3] bpf, arm64: Support stack arguments Puranjay Mohan
@ 2026-04-27 23:47 ` Puranjay Mohan
2026-04-27 23:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/3] bpf, arm64: Add JIT support for stack arguments Puranjay Mohan
2026-04-27 23:48 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/3] selftests/bpf: Enable stack argument tests for arm64 Puranjay Mohan
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Puranjay Mohan @ 2026-04-27 23:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bpf, Yonghong Song
Cc: Puranjay Mohan, Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann,
Andrii Nakryiko, Martin KaFai Lau, Eduard Zingerman,
Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi, Song Liu, Xu Kuohai, Catalin Marinas,
Will Deacon, linux-arm-kernel
Move the BPF return value register from x7 to x8, freeing x7 for use
as an argument register. AAPCS64 designates x8 as the indirect result
location register; it is caller-saved and not used for argument
passing, making it a suitable home for BPF_REG_0.
This is a prerequisite for stack argument support, which needs x5-x7
to pass arguments 6-8 to native kfuncs following the AAPCS64 calling
convention.
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Signed-off-by: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@kernel.org>
---
arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 4 ++--
arch/arm64/net/bpf_timed_may_goto.S | 8 ++++----
.../testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_jit_inline.c | 2 +-
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_ldsx.c | 6 +++---
.../selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_private_stack.c | 10 +++++-----
5 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
index 0816c40fc7af..085e650662e3 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@
/* Map BPF registers to A64 registers */
static const int bpf2a64[] = {
/* return value from in-kernel function, and exit value from eBPF */
- [BPF_REG_0] = A64_R(7),
+ [BPF_REG_0] = A64_R(8),
/* arguments from eBPF program to in-kernel function */
[BPF_REG_1] = A64_R(0),
[BPF_REG_2] = A64_R(1),
@@ -1048,7 +1048,7 @@ static void build_epilogue(struct jit_ctx *ctx, bool was_classic)
/* Restore FP/LR registers */
emit(A64_POP(A64_FP, A64_LR, A64_SP), ctx);
- /* Move the return value from bpf:r0 (aka x7) to x0 */
+ /* Move the return value from bpf:r0 (aka x8) to x0 */
emit(A64_MOV(1, A64_R(0), r0), ctx);
/* Authenticate lr */
diff --git a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_timed_may_goto.S b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_timed_may_goto.S
index 894cfcd7b241..a9a802711a7f 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_timed_may_goto.S
+++ b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_timed_may_goto.S
@@ -8,8 +8,8 @@ SYM_FUNC_START(arch_bpf_timed_may_goto)
stp x29, x30, [sp, #-64]!
mov x29, sp
- /* Save BPF registers R0 - R5 (x7, x0-x4)*/
- stp x7, x0, [sp, #16]
+ /* Save BPF registers R0 - R5 (x8, x0-x4)*/
+ stp x8, x0, [sp, #16]
stp x1, x2, [sp, #32]
stp x3, x4, [sp, #48]
@@ -28,8 +28,8 @@ SYM_FUNC_START(arch_bpf_timed_may_goto)
/* BPF_REG_AX(x9) will be stored into count, so move return value to it. */
mov x9, x0
- /* Restore BPF registers R0 - R5 (x7, x0-x4) */
- ldp x7, x0, [sp, #16]
+ /* Restore BPF registers R0 - R5 (x8, x0-x4) */
+ ldp x8, x0, [sp, #16]
ldp x1, x2, [sp, #32]
ldp x3, x4, [sp, #48]
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_jit_inline.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_jit_inline.c
index 4ea254063646..885ff69a3a62 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_jit_inline.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_jit_inline.c
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ __success __retval(0)
__arch_x86_64
__jited(" addq %gs:{{.*}}, %rax")
__arch_arm64
-__jited(" mrs x7, SP_EL0")
+__jited(" mrs x8, SP_EL0")
int inline_bpf_get_current_task(void)
{
bpf_get_current_task();
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_ldsx.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_ldsx.c
index c8494b682c31..c814e82a7242 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_ldsx.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_ldsx.c
@@ -274,11 +274,11 @@ __jited("movslq 0x10(%rdi,%r12), %r15")
__jited("movswq 0x18(%rdi,%r12), %r15")
__jited("movsbq 0x20(%rdi,%r12), %r15")
__arch_arm64
-__jited("add x11, x7, x28")
+__jited("add x11, x8, x28")
__jited("ldrsw x21, [x11, #0x10]")
-__jited("add x11, x7, x28")
+__jited("add x11, x8, x28")
__jited("ldrsh x21, [x11, #0x18]")
-__jited("add x11, x7, x28")
+__jited("add x11, x8, x28")
__jited("ldrsb x21, [x11, #0x20]")
__jited("add x11, x0, x28")
__jited("ldrsw x22, [x11, #0x10]")
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_private_stack.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_private_stack.c
index 646e8ef82051..c5078face38d 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_private_stack.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_private_stack.c
@@ -170,12 +170,12 @@ __jited(" mrs x10, TPIDR_EL{{[0-1]}}")
__jited(" add x27, x27, x10")
__jited(" add x25, x27, {{.*}}")
__jited(" bl 0x{{.*}}")
-__jited(" mov x7, x0")
+__jited(" mov x8, x0")
__jited(" mov x0, #0x2a")
__jited(" str x0, [x27]")
__jited(" bl 0x{{.*}}")
-__jited(" mov x7, x0")
-__jited(" mov x7, #0x0")
+__jited(" mov x8, x0")
+__jited(" mov x8, #0x0")
__jited(" ldp x25, x27, [sp], {{.*}}")
__naked void private_stack_callback(void)
{
@@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ __jited(" mov x0, #0x2a")
__jited(" str x0, [x27]")
__jited(" mov x0, #0x0")
__jited(" bl 0x{{.*}}")
-__jited(" mov x7, x0")
+__jited(" mov x8, x0")
__jited(" ldp x27, x28, [sp], #0x10")
int private_stack_exception_main_prog(void)
{
@@ -258,7 +258,7 @@ __jited(" add x25, x27, {{.*}}")
__jited(" mov x0, #0x2a")
__jited(" str x0, [x27]")
__jited(" bl 0x{{.*}}")
-__jited(" mov x7, x0")
+__jited(" mov x8, x0")
__jited(" ldp x27, x28, [sp], #0x10")
int private_stack_exception_sub_prog(void)
{
--
2.52.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/3] bpf, arm64: Add JIT support for stack arguments
2026-04-27 23:47 [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/3] bpf, arm64: Support stack arguments Puranjay Mohan
2026-04-27 23:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/3] bpf, arm64: Map BPF_REG_0 to x8 instead of x7 Puranjay Mohan
@ 2026-04-27 23:47 ` Puranjay Mohan
2026-04-27 23:48 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/3] selftests/bpf: Enable stack argument tests for arm64 Puranjay Mohan
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Puranjay Mohan @ 2026-04-27 23:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bpf, Yonghong Song
Cc: Puranjay Mohan, Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann,
Andrii Nakryiko, Martin KaFai Lau, Eduard Zingerman,
Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi, Song Liu, Xu Kuohai, Catalin Marinas,
Will Deacon, linux-arm-kernel
Implement stack argument passing for BPF-to-BPF and kfunc calls with
more than 5 parameters on arm64, following the AAPCS64 calling
convention.
BPF R1-R5 already map to x0-x4. With BPF_REG_0 moved to x8 by the
previous commit, x5-x7 are free for arguments 6-8. Arguments 9-12
spill onto the stack at [SP+0], [SP+8], ... and the callee reads
them from [FP+16], [FP+24], ... (above the saved FP/LR pair).
BPF convention uses fixed offsets from BPF_REG_PARAMS (r11): off=-8 is
always arg 6, off=-16 arg 7, etc. The verifier invalidates all outgoing
stack arg slots after each call, so the compiler must re-store before
every call. This means x5-x7 don't need to be saved on stack.
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Signed-off-by: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@kernel.org>
---
arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 87 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 86 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
index 085e650662e3..cd8279880795 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
@@ -86,6 +86,7 @@ struct jit_ctx {
__le32 *image;
__le32 *ro_image;
u32 stack_size;
+ u16 stack_arg_size;
u64 user_vm_start;
u64 arena_vm_start;
bool fp_used;
@@ -533,13 +534,19 @@ static int build_prologue(struct jit_ctx *ctx, bool ebpf_from_cbpf)
* | |
* +-----+ <= (BPF_FP - prog->aux->stack_depth)
* |RSVD | padding
- * current A64_SP => +-----+ <= (BPF_FP - ctx->stack_size)
+ * +-----+ <= (BPF_FP - ctx->stack_size)
+ * | |
+ * | ... | outgoing stack args (9+, if any)
+ * | |
+ * current A64_SP => +-----+
* | |
* | ... | Function call stack
* | |
* +-----+
* low
*
+ * Stack args 6-8 are passed in x5-x7, args 9+ at [SP].
+ * Incoming args 9+ are at [FP + 16], [FP + 24], ...
*/
emit_kcfi(is_main_prog ? cfi_bpf_hash : cfi_bpf_subprog_hash, ctx);
@@ -613,6 +620,9 @@ static int build_prologue(struct jit_ctx *ctx, bool ebpf_from_cbpf)
if (ctx->stack_size && !ctx->priv_sp_used)
emit(A64_SUB_I(1, A64_SP, A64_SP, ctx->stack_size), ctx);
+ if (ctx->stack_arg_size)
+ emit(A64_SUB_I(1, A64_SP, A64_SP, ctx->stack_arg_size), ctx);
+
if (ctx->arena_vm_start)
emit_a64_mov_i64(arena_vm_base, ctx->arena_vm_start, ctx);
@@ -673,6 +683,9 @@ static int emit_bpf_tail_call(struct jit_ctx *ctx)
/* Update tail_call_cnt if the slot is populated. */
emit(A64_STR64I(tcc, ptr, 0), ctx);
+ if (ctx->stack_arg_size)
+ emit(A64_ADD_I(1, A64_SP, A64_SP, ctx->stack_arg_size), ctx);
+
/* restore SP */
if (ctx->stack_size && !ctx->priv_sp_used)
emit(A64_ADD_I(1, A64_SP, A64_SP, ctx->stack_size), ctx);
@@ -1034,6 +1047,9 @@ static void build_epilogue(struct jit_ctx *ctx, bool was_classic)
const u8 r0 = bpf2a64[BPF_REG_0];
const u8 ptr = bpf2a64[TCCNT_PTR];
+ if (ctx->stack_arg_size)
+ emit(A64_ADD_I(1, A64_SP, A64_SP, ctx->stack_arg_size), ctx);
+
/* We're done with BPF stack */
if (ctx->stack_size && !ctx->priv_sp_used)
emit(A64_ADD_I(1, A64_SP, A64_SP, ctx->stack_size), ctx);
@@ -1191,6 +1207,41 @@ static int add_exception_handler(const struct bpf_insn *insn,
return 0;
}
+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)
+
+static void emit_stack_arg_load(u8 dst, s16 bpf_off, struct jit_ctx *ctx)
+{
+ int idx = bpf_off / sizeof(u64) - 1;
+
+ if (idx < NR_STACK_ARG_REGS)
+ emit(A64_MOV(1, dst, stack_arg_reg[idx]), ctx);
+ else
+ emit(A64_LDR64I(dst, A64_FP, (idx - NR_STACK_ARG_REGS) * sizeof(u64) + 16), ctx);
+}
+
+static void emit_stack_arg_store(u8 src_a64, s16 bpf_off, struct jit_ctx *ctx)
+{
+ int idx = -bpf_off / sizeof(u64) - 1;
+
+ if (idx < NR_STACK_ARG_REGS)
+ emit(A64_MOV(1, stack_arg_reg[idx], src_a64), ctx);
+ else
+ emit(A64_STR64I(src_a64, A64_SP, (idx - NR_STACK_ARG_REGS) * sizeof(u64)), ctx);
+}
+
+static void emit_stack_arg_store_imm(s32 imm, s16 bpf_off, const u8 tmp, struct jit_ctx *ctx)
+{
+ int idx = -bpf_off / sizeof(u64) - 1;
+
+ emit_a64_mov_i(1, tmp, imm, ctx);
+ if (idx < NR_STACK_ARG_REGS)
+ emit(A64_MOV(1, stack_arg_reg[idx], tmp), ctx);
+ else
+ emit(A64_STR64I(tmp, A64_SP, (idx - NR_STACK_ARG_REGS) * sizeof(u64)), ctx);
+}
+
/* JITs an eBPF instruction.
* Returns:
* 0 - successfully JITed an 8-byte eBPF instruction.
@@ -1646,6 +1697,11 @@ static int build_insn(const struct bpf_verifier_env *env, const struct bpf_insn
case BPF_LDX | BPF_MEM | BPF_H:
case BPF_LDX | BPF_MEM | BPF_B:
case BPF_LDX | BPF_MEM | BPF_DW:
+ if (insn->src_reg == BPF_REG_PARAMS) {
+ emit_stack_arg_load(dst, off, ctx);
+ break;
+ }
+ fallthrough;
case BPF_LDX | BPF_PROBE_MEM | BPF_DW:
case BPF_LDX | BPF_PROBE_MEM | BPF_W:
case BPF_LDX | BPF_PROBE_MEM | BPF_H:
@@ -1672,6 +1728,8 @@ static int build_insn(const struct bpf_verifier_env *env, const struct bpf_insn
if (src == fp) {
src_adj = ctx->priv_sp_used ? priv_sp : A64_SP;
off_adj = off + ctx->stack_size;
+ if (!ctx->priv_sp_used)
+ off_adj += ctx->stack_arg_size;
} else {
src_adj = src;
off_adj = off;
@@ -1752,6 +1810,11 @@ static int build_insn(const struct bpf_verifier_env *env, const struct bpf_insn
case BPF_ST | BPF_MEM | BPF_H:
case BPF_ST | BPF_MEM | BPF_B:
case BPF_ST | BPF_MEM | BPF_DW:
+ if (insn->dst_reg == BPF_REG_PARAMS) {
+ emit_stack_arg_store_imm(imm, off, tmp, ctx);
+ break;
+ }
+ fallthrough;
case BPF_ST | BPF_PROBE_MEM32 | BPF_B:
case BPF_ST | BPF_PROBE_MEM32 | BPF_H:
case BPF_ST | BPF_PROBE_MEM32 | BPF_W:
@@ -1763,6 +1826,8 @@ static int build_insn(const struct bpf_verifier_env *env, const struct bpf_insn
if (dst == fp) {
dst_adj = ctx->priv_sp_used ? priv_sp : A64_SP;
off_adj = off + ctx->stack_size;
+ if (!ctx->priv_sp_used)
+ off_adj += ctx->stack_arg_size;
} else {
dst_adj = dst;
off_adj = off;
@@ -1814,6 +1879,11 @@ static int build_insn(const struct bpf_verifier_env *env, const struct bpf_insn
case BPF_STX | BPF_MEM | BPF_H:
case BPF_STX | BPF_MEM | BPF_B:
case BPF_STX | BPF_MEM | BPF_DW:
+ if (insn->dst_reg == BPF_REG_PARAMS) {
+ emit_stack_arg_store(src, off, ctx);
+ break;
+ }
+ fallthrough;
case BPF_STX | BPF_PROBE_MEM32 | BPF_B:
case BPF_STX | BPF_PROBE_MEM32 | BPF_H:
case BPF_STX | BPF_PROBE_MEM32 | BPF_W:
@@ -1825,6 +1895,8 @@ static int build_insn(const struct bpf_verifier_env *env, const struct bpf_insn
if (dst == fp) {
dst_adj = ctx->priv_sp_used ? priv_sp : A64_SP;
off_adj = off + ctx->stack_size;
+ if (!ctx->priv_sp_used)
+ off_adj += ctx->stack_arg_size;
} else {
dst_adj = dst;
off_adj = off;
@@ -2065,6 +2137,14 @@ struct bpf_prog *bpf_int_jit_compile(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_pr
ctx.user_vm_start = bpf_arena_get_user_vm_start(prog->aux->arena);
ctx.arena_vm_start = bpf_arena_get_kern_vm_start(prog->aux->arena);
+ if (prog->aux->stack_arg_depth > prog->aux->incoming_stack_arg_depth) {
+ u16 outgoing = prog->aux->stack_arg_depth - prog->aux->incoming_stack_arg_depth;
+ int nr_on_stack = outgoing / sizeof(u64) - NR_STACK_ARG_REGS;
+
+ if (nr_on_stack > 0)
+ ctx.stack_arg_size = round_up(nr_on_stack * sizeof(u64), 16);
+ }
+
if (priv_stack_ptr)
ctx.priv_sp_used = true;
@@ -2229,6 +2309,11 @@ bool bpf_jit_supports_kfunc_call(void)
return true;
}
+bool bpf_jit_supports_stack_args(void)
+{
+ return true;
+}
+
void *bpf_arch_text_copy(void *dst, void *src, size_t len)
{
if (!aarch64_insn_copy(dst, src, len))
--
2.52.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/3] selftests/bpf: Enable stack argument tests for arm64
2026-04-27 23:47 [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/3] bpf, arm64: Support stack arguments Puranjay Mohan
2026-04-27 23:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/3] bpf, arm64: Map BPF_REG_0 to x8 instead of x7 Puranjay Mohan
2026-04-27 23:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/3] bpf, arm64: Add JIT support for stack arguments Puranjay Mohan
@ 2026-04-27 23:48 ` Puranjay Mohan
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Puranjay Mohan @ 2026-04-27 23:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bpf, Yonghong Song
Cc: Puranjay Mohan, Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann,
Andrii Nakryiko, Martin KaFai Lau, Eduard Zingerman,
Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi, Song Liu, Xu Kuohai, Catalin Marinas,
Will Deacon, linux-arm-kernel
Now that arm64 supports stack arguments, enable the existing stack_arg,
stack_arg_kfunc and verifier_stack_arg tests for __TARGET_ARCH_arm64.
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Signed-off-by: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@kernel.org>
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/btf__stack_arg_precision.c | 3 ++-
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/stack_arg.c | 3 ++-
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/stack_arg_kfunc.c | 3 ++-
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/stack_arg_precision.c | 3 ++-
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_stack_arg.c | 3 ++-
5 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/btf__stack_arg_precision.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/btf__stack_arg_precision.c
index 296fddfe6804..8d38aafe66a2 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/btf__stack_arg_precision.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/btf__stack_arg_precision.c
@@ -4,7 +4,8 @@
#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
#include "../test_kmods/bpf_testmod_kfunc.h"
-#if defined(__TARGET_ARCH_x86) && defined(__BPF_FEATURE_STACK_ARGUMENT)
+#if (defined(__TARGET_ARCH_x86) || defined(__TARGET_ARCH_arm64)) && \
+ defined(__BPF_FEATURE_STACK_ARGUMENT)
long subprog_call_mem_kfunc(long a, long b, long c, long d, long e, long size)
{
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/stack_arg.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/stack_arg.c
index ab6240b997c5..b5e9929a4d63 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/stack_arg.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/stack_arg.c
@@ -21,7 +21,8 @@ struct {
int timer_result;
-#if defined(__TARGET_ARCH_x86) && defined(__BPF_FEATURE_STACK_ARGUMENT)
+#if (defined(__TARGET_ARCH_x86) || defined(__TARGET_ARCH_arm64)) && \
+ defined(__BPF_FEATURE_STACK_ARGUMENT)
const volatile bool has_stack_arg = true;
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/stack_arg_kfunc.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/stack_arg_kfunc.c
index fa9def876ea5..da0d4f91d273 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/stack_arg_kfunc.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/stack_arg_kfunc.c
@@ -6,7 +6,8 @@
#include "bpf_kfuncs.h"
#include "../test_kmods/bpf_testmod_kfunc.h"
-#if defined(__TARGET_ARCH_x86) && defined(__BPF_FEATURE_STACK_ARGUMENT)
+#if (defined(__TARGET_ARCH_x86) || defined(__TARGET_ARCH_arm64)) && \
+ defined(__BPF_FEATURE_STACK_ARGUMENT)
const volatile bool has_stack_arg = true;
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/stack_arg_precision.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/stack_arg_precision.c
index 29b2f2aea931..460d1872a84c 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/stack_arg_precision.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/stack_arg_precision.c
@@ -6,7 +6,8 @@
#include "../test_kmods/bpf_testmod_kfunc.h"
#include "bpf_misc.h"
-#if defined(__TARGET_ARCH_x86) && defined(__BPF_FEATURE_STACK_ARGUMENT)
+#if (defined(__TARGET_ARCH_x86) || defined(__TARGET_ARCH_arm64)) && \
+ defined(__BPF_FEATURE_STACK_ARGUMENT)
/* Force kfunc extern BTF generation for inline asm call below.
* Uses its own SEC so it's not included as a .text subprog.
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_stack_arg.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_stack_arg.c
index 6b596ad63774..b412c311b757 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_stack_arg.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_stack_arg.c
@@ -12,7 +12,8 @@ struct {
__type(value, long long);
} map_hash_8b SEC(".maps");
-#if defined(__TARGET_ARCH_x86) && defined(__BPF_FEATURE_STACK_ARGUMENT)
+#if (defined(__TARGET_ARCH_x86) || defined(__TARGET_ARCH_arm64)) && \
+ defined(__BPF_FEATURE_STACK_ARGUMENT)
__noinline __used
static int subprog_6args(int a, int b, int c, int d, int e, int f)
--
2.52.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread