Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] powerpc64/bpf: Add arch_bpf_stack_walk() for BPF JIT

Hari Bathini
2026-01-16T05:39:14Z

On 14/01/26 6:50 pm, adubey wrote:
> On 2026-01-14 18:07, Christophe Leroy (CS GROUP) wrote:
>> Le 14/01/2026 à 12:44, adubey@linux.ibm.com a écrit :
>>> From: Abhishek Dubey <adubey@linux.ibm.com>
>>>
>>> This function is used by bpf_throw() to unwind the stack
>>> until frame of exception-boundary during BPF exception
>>> handling.
>>>
>>> This function is necessary to support BPF exceptions on
>>> PowerPC.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Dubey <adubey@linux.ibm.com>
>>> ---
>>>   arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>   1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c b/arch/powerpc/net/
>>> bpf_jit_comp64.c
>>> index cebf81fbd59f..ec58395f74f7 100644
>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
>>> @@ -247,6 +247,34 @@ void bpf_jit_build_epilogue(u32 *image, struct
>>> codegen_context *ctx)
>>>       bpf_jit_build_fentry_stubs(image, ctx);
>>>   }
>>>   +void arch_bpf_stack_walk(bool (*consume_fn)(void *, u64, u64,
>>> u64), void *cookie)
>>> +{
>>> +    // callback processing always in current context
>>> +    unsigned long fp = current_stack_frame();
>>> +
>>> +    for (;;) {
>>> +        unsigned long *frame = (unsigned long *) fp;
>>> +        unsigned long ip;
>>> +
>>> +        if (!validate_sp(fp, current))
>>> +            return;
>>> +
>>> +        ip = frame[STACK_FRAME_LR_SAVE];
>>> +        if (!ip)
>>> +            break;
>>> +
>>> +        /*
>>> +         * consume_fn common code expects stack pointer(sp) in third
>>> +         * argument. There is no sp in ppc64, rather pass frame
>>> +         * pointer.
>>> +         */
>>> +        if (ip && !consume_fn(cookie, ip, fp, fp))
>>> +            break;
>>> +
>>> +        fp = frame[0];
>>> +    }
>>> +}
>>> +
>>
>> This fonction looks very close to arch_stack_walk(). Would it be
>> possible to refactor and have a common part used by both functions,
>> like ARM64 for instance ?
> Yes, its inspired from arch_stack_walk(). consume_entry() have different
> parameter count in both cases.
> If merged, it need additional handling to identify which call_back to
> invoke.
> Also, we need to define arch-specific weak function
> arch_bpf_stack_walk(), so renaming of arch_stack_walk is needed on merge.
> Stack walker logic with "bpf" name might be confusing when used at other
> places. Thoughts?

Not sure what you mean by renaming of arch_stack_walk is needed on
merge but refactoring does not have to change API signature or any
common code for that matter..

- Hari