From: Yeswanth Krishna <yeswanth@linux.ibm.com>
To: adubey@linux.ibm.com, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: hbathini@linux.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
maddy@linux.ibm.com, ast@kernel.org, andrii@kernel.org,
daniel@iogearbox.net, shuah@kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf v9 0/8] powerpc/bpf: address missing verifier selftest coverage
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2026 17:05:15 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <79961464-e8fb-419b-92a5-b5b57e00de52@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260623231411.6216-1-adubey@linux.ibm.com>
Hi Abhishek,
I have tested this patch series on PowerPC64 (ppc64le) and can confirm
all 8 patches work correctly.
## Test Environment
- System: PowerPC64 (ppc64le)
- Kernel: 7.1.0-rc3 with all 8 patches applied
- BTF Support: Enabled (CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF=y)
- Test Suite: tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs
## Test Results
### WITHOUT Patches (Baseline):
- Kernel: 7.1.0-rc3-00362-g6916d5703ddf
- Summary: 111/2135 PASSED, 35 SKIPPED, 5 FAILED
- verifier_tailcall_jit: **FAIL**
- Error: "Can't disasm instruction at offset 96: 60 80 1c 00 00 00 00 c0"
### WITH All 8 Patches:
- Kernel: 7.1.0-rc3-00370-g202ecf282b6e
- Summary: 112/2136 PASSED, 35 SKIPPED, 4 FAILED
- verifier_tailcall_jit: **OK**
The critical PowerPC64-specific test `verifier_tailcall_jit` now passes:
#635/1 verifier_tailcall_jit/main:OK
#635 verifier_tailcall_jit:OK
This test was previously failing due to JIT disassembly issues caused by
the dummy_tramp_addr placement. The patches successfully:
1. Fix alignment of long branch trampoline address
2. Relocate dummy_tramp_addr to bottom of stub
3. Fix JIT disassembly truncation
4. Enable PowerPC64 arch support in verifier tests
5. Fix compare instruction (cmpldi vs cmplwi) for tailcalls
6. Add PowerPC64 tailcall verifier test
7. Fix JIT buffer overflow for large programs
8. Fix percpu private stack leak on JIT failure
The 4 remaining failures are all in verifier_arena* tests with -ENOMEM
errors, which are unrelated to these patches and appear to be
platform-specific memory allocation issues with the arena feature.
Please add below tag.
Tested-by: Yeswanth Krishna Tellakula <yeswanth@linux.ibm.com>
Regards,
Yeswanth
On 24/06/26 4:44 am, adubey@linux.ibm.com wrote:
> From: Abhishek Dubey <adubey@linux.ibm.com>
>
> The verifier selftest validates JITed instructions by matching expected
> disassembly output. The first two patches fix issues in powerpc instruction
> disassembly that were causing test flow failures. The fix is common for
> 64-bit & 32-bit powerpc. Add support for the powerpc-specific "__powerpc64"
> architecture tag in the third patch, enabling proper test filtering in
> verifier test files. Introduce verifier testcases for tailcalls on powerpc64.
>
> The first patch in series is fix patch, correcting memory alignment with
> 8-byte boundary for long branch address field. The subsequent patches
> enables verifier selftests on powerpc. The fifth patch in the series fixes
> incorrect comparator usage for comparing tailcall info with tailcall
> threshold. The last two patches fix JIT buffer overflow for large BPF progs
> and private stack memory leak (identified by bot during reviews).
>
> Issue Details:
> --------------
>
> The Long branch stub in the trampoline implementation[1] provides
> flexibility to handles short as well as long branch distance to
> actual trampoline. Whereas, the 8 bytes long dummy_tramp_addr field
> sitting before long branch stub leads to failure when enabling
> verifier based seltest for ppc64.
>
> The verifier selftests require disassembing the final jited image
> to get native instructions. Later the disassembled instruction
> sequence is matched against sequence of instructions provided in
> test-file under __jited() wrapper. The final jited image contains
> Out-of-line stub and Long branch stub as part of epilogue jitting
> for a bpf program. The 8 bytes space for dummy_tramp is sandwiched
> between both above mentioned stubs. These 8 bytes contain memory
> address of dummy trampoline during trampoline invocation which don't
> correspond to any powerpc instructions. So, disassembly fails
> resulting in failure of verifier selftests.
>
> The following code snippet shows the problem with current arrangement
> made for dummy_tramp_addr.
>
> /* Out-of-line stub */
> mflr r0
> [b|bl] tramp
> mtlr r0 //only with OOL
> b bpf_func + 4
> /* Long branch stub */
> .long <dummy_tramp_addr> <---Invalid bytes sequence, disassembly fails
> mflr r11
> bcl 20,31,$+4
> mflr r12
> ld r12, -8-SZL(r12)
> mtctr r12
> mtlr r11 //retain ftrace ABI
> bctr
>
> Consider test program binary of size 112 bytes:
> 0: 00000060 10004de8 00002039 f8ff21f9 81ff21f8 7000e1fb 3000e13b
> 28: 3000e13b 2a006038 f8ff7ff8 00000039 7000e1eb 80002138 7843037d
> 56: 2000804e a602087c 00000060 a603087c bcffff4b c0341d00 000000c0
> 84: a602687d 05009f42 a602887d f0ff8ce9 a603897d a603687d 2004804e
>
> Disassembly output of above binary for ppc64le:
> pc:0 left:112 00 00 00 60 : nop
> pc:4 left:108 10 00 4d e8 : ld 2, 16(13)
> pc:8 left:104 00 00 20 39 : li 9, 0
> pc:12 left:100 f8 ff 21 f9 : std 9, -8(1)
> pc:16 left:96 81 ff 21 f8 : stdu 1, -128(1)
> pc:20 left:92 70 00 e1 fb : std 31, 112(1)
> pc:24 left:88 30 00 e1 3b : addi 31, 1, 48
> pc:28 left:84 30 00 e1 3b : addi 31, 1, 48
> pc:32 left:80 2a 00 60 38 : li 3, 42
> pc:36 left:76 f8 ff 7f f8 : std 3, -8(31)
> pc:40 left:72 00 00 00 39 : li 8, 0
> pc:44 left:68 70 00 e1 eb : ld 31, 112(1)
> pc:48 left:64 80 00 21 38 : addi 1, 1, 128
> pc:52 left:60 78 43 03 7d : mr 3, 8
> pc:56 left:56 20 00 80 4e : blr
> pc:60 left:52 a6 02 08 7c : mflr 0
> pc:64 left:48 00 00 00 60 : nop
> pc:68 left:44 a6 03 08 7c : mtlr 0
> pc:72 left:40 bc ff ff 4b : b .-68
> pc:76 left:36 c0 34 1d 00 :
> ...
>
> Failure log:
> Can't disasm instruction at offset 76: c0 34 1d 00 00 00 00 c0 a6 02 68 7d 05 00 9f 42
> --------------------------------------
>
> Observation:
> Can't disasm instruction at offset 76 as this address has
> ".long <dummy_tramp_addr>" (0xc0341d00000000c0)
> But valid instructions follow at offset 84 onwards.
>
> Move the long branch address space to the bottom of the long
> branch stub. This allows uninterrupted disassembly until the
> last 8 bytes. Exclude these last bytes from the overall
> program length to prevent failure in assembly generation.
>
> Following is disassembler output for same test program with moved down
> dummy_tramp_addr field:
> .....
> .....
> pc:68 left:44 a6 03 08 7c : mtlr 0
> pc:72 left:40 bc ff ff 4b : b .-68
> pc:76 left:36 a6 02 68 7d : mflr 11
> pc:80 left:32 05 00 9f 42 : bcl 20, 31, .+4
> pc:84 left:28 a6 02 88 7d : mflr 12
> pc:88 left:24 14 00 8c e9 : ld 12, 20(12)
> pc:92 left:20 a6 03 89 7d : mtctr 12
> pc:96 left:16 a6 03 68 7d : mtlr 11
> pc:100 left:12 20 04 80 4e : bctr
> pc:104 left:8 c0 34 1d 00 :
>
> Failure log:
> Can't disasm instruction at offset 104: c0 34 1d 00 00 00 00 c0
> ---------------------------------------
> Disassembly logic can truncate at 104, ignoring last 8 bytes.
>
> Update the dummy_tramp_addr field offset calculation from the end
> of the program to reflect its new location, for bpf_arch_text_poke()
> to update the actual trampoline's address in this field.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241030070850.1361304-18-hbathini@linux.ibm.com
>
> v8->v9:
> Dynamic pass handling until code keeps shrinking
> Fix private stack memory leak
>
> v7->v8:
> Fixed bot identified issues of alt_exit_addr and BPF_EXIT
> Fixed 32-bit ppc function signature mismatch
>
> v6->v7:
> Fixed JIT buffer overflow in case of large BPF progs
> Addressed remaining bot comments
>
> v5->v6:
> Changed alignment NOP emittion dependency on fimage layout
> Adjust tail truncate length for 32-bit ppc
> Addressed few minor bot comments
>
> v4->v5:
> Handled alignment NOP emit logic and corresponding stub offsets
> Handled image buffer overflow problem in last pass
> Above changes took care of other bot reviews
> Included LLVMDisposeMessage() for graceful freeing
> Adjusted parameters in bpf_jit_build_fentry_stubs for ppc32
> Adjusted expected JIT inst. in tailcall test for
> CONFIG_PPC_KERNEL_PCREL config
> Added fix patch at last for inaccurate use of cmplwi inst.
>
> v3->v4:
> Changed logic for emitting alignment NOP
>
> v2->v3:
> Removed fixed NOP from bottom of long branch stub
> Rebased on top of bpf-next
>
> v1->v2:
> Added fix-patch to correct memory alignment in-place
> Moved the optional alignmnet NOP before OOL stub
>
> [v1]: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20260225013627.22098-1-adubey@linux.ibm.com
> [v2]: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20260403004011.44417-1-adubey@linux.ibm.com
> [v3]: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20260411221413.44304-1-adubey@linux.ibm.com
> [v4]: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20260517214043.12975-1-adubey@linux.ibm.com
> [v5]: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20260519233812.18787-1-adubey@linux.ibm.com
> [v6]: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20260529015855.364704-1-adubey@linux.ibm.com
> [v7]: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20260611153826.31187-1-adubey@linux.ibm.com
> [v8]: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20260616164741.32252-1-adubey@linux.ibm.com
>
> Abhishek Dubey (8):
> powerpc/bpf: fix alignment of long branch trampoline address
> powerpc/bpf: Move out dummy_tramp_addr after Long branch stub
> selftest/bpf: Fixing powerpc JIT disassembly failure
> selftest/bpf: Enable verifier selftest for powerpc64
> powerpc64/bpf: fix compare instruction emitted for tailcall
> selftest/bpf: Add tailcall verifier selftest for powerpc64
> powerpc/bpf: fix buffer overflow in JIT for large BPF programs
> powerpc64/bpf: fix percpu private stack leak on JIT failure
>
> arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit.h | 20 +++-
> arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 99 ++++++++++++++-----
> arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c | 7 +-
> arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c | 15 +--
> .../selftests/bpf/jit_disasm_helpers.c | 27 ++++-
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_misc.h | 1 +
> .../bpf/progs/verifier_tailcall_jit.c | 69 +++++++++++++
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_loader.c | 5 +
> 8 files changed, 203 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-06-30 11:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-23 23:14 [PATCH bpf v9 0/8] powerpc/bpf: address missing verifier selftest coverage adubey
2026-06-23 23:14 ` [PATCH bpf v9 1/8] powerpc/bpf: fix alignment of long branch trampoline address adubey
2026-06-23 23:14 ` [PATCH bpf v9 2/8] powerpc/bpf: Move out dummy_tramp_addr after Long branch stub adubey
2026-06-23 20:07 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-06-23 23:14 ` [PATCH bpf v9 3/8] selftest/bpf: Fixing powerpc JIT disassembly failure adubey
2026-06-23 20:07 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-06-23 23:14 ` [PATCH bpf v9 4/8] selftest/bpf: Enable verifier selftest for powerpc64 adubey
2026-06-23 23:14 ` [PATCH bpf v9 5/8] powerpc64/bpf: fix compare instruction emitted for tailcall adubey
2026-06-23 23:14 ` [PATCH bpf v9 6/8] selftest/bpf: Add tailcall verifier selftest for powerpc64 adubey
2026-06-23 23:14 ` [PATCH bpf v9 7/8] powerpc/bpf: fix buffer overflow in JIT for large BPF programs adubey
2026-06-23 23:14 ` [PATCH bpf v9 8/8] powerpc64/bpf: fix percpu private stack leak on JIT failure adubey
2026-06-30 11:35 ` Yeswanth Krishna [this message]
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=79961464-e8fb-419b-92a5-b5b57e00de52@linux.ibm.com \
--to=yeswanth@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=adubey@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=hbathini@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=maddy@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
/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