[PATCH bpf v2] riscv, bpf: Emit fixed-length instructions for BPF_PSEUDO_FUNC

[Pu Lehui]

On 2022/12/6 15:55, Björn Töpel wrote:
> Pu Lehui <pulehui at huaweicloud.com> writes:
> 
>> Sorry for replying so late. For BPF_PSEUDO_FUNC instruction, verifier
>> will set insn[0].imm and insn[1].imm to 1 that make addr to 0x100000001
>> before extra pass, and also ctx->insns is NULL in iteration stage, all
>> of these make off out of range of AUIPC-ADDI range, and return failed.
>> We could add some special handling at different stages, but that seems a
>> little weird. By the way, I do not really like emit_addr function with
>> return value.
> 
> My rational is that *if* for some reason the jit is passed an address
> that auipc/addi can't represent, we'd like to catch that and not emit
> broken code.
> 
>> While a proper address is at least 2B alignment, and the valid address
>> is from 0xffffffff00000000 to 0xffffffffffffffff, we can make address
>> shifed 1 place to right, and addr >> 1 will always in the range of
>> AUIPC-ADDI range. We can get rid of the range detection. The
>> implementation is as follows:
>>
>> static void emit_addr(u8 rd, u64 addr, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
>> {
>>            s64 imm = addr >> 1;
>>            s64 upper = (imm + (1 << 11)) >> 12;
>>            s64 lower = imm & 0xfff;
>>
>>            emit(rv_lui(rd, upper), ctx);
>>            emit(rv_addi(rd, rd, lower), ctx);
>>            emit(rv_slli(rd, rd, 1), ctx);
>> }
>>
>> What do you think?
> 
> That's a code generation penalty, instead of catching it at code
> gen. Don't like! :-) I much prefer the auipc/addi version.
> 
> What do you think about the diff (on-top of your work) below?
> 
> --8<--
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> index aa9410eef77c..7acaf28cb3be 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> @@ -137,15 +137,21 @@ static bool in_auipc_jalr_range(s64 val)
>   }
>   
>   /* Emit fixed-length instructions for address */
> -static void emit_addr(u8 rd, u64 addr, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
> +static int emit_addr(u8 rd, u64 addr, bool extra_pass, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
>   {
>   	u64 ip = (u64)(ctx->insns + ctx->ninsns);
>   	s64 off = addr - ip;
>   	s64 upper = (off + (1 << 11)) >> 12;
>   	s64 lower = ((off & 0xfff) << 52) >> 52;
>   
> +	if (extra_pass && !in_auipc_jalr_range(off)) {
> +		pr_err("bpf-jit: target offset 0x%llx is out of range\n", off);
> +		return -ERANGE;
> +	}
> +
>   	emit(rv_auipc(rd, upper), ctx);
>   	emit(rv_addi(rd, rd, lower), ctx);
> +	return 0;
>   }
>   
>   /* Emit variable-length instructions for 32-bit and 64-bit imm */
> @@ -1061,13 +1067,17 @@ int bpf_jit_emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
>   	{
>   		struct bpf_insn insn1 = insn[1];
>   		u64 imm64;
> +		int ret;
>   
>   		imm64 = (u64)insn1.imm << 32 | (u32)imm;
> -		if (bpf_pseudo_func(insn))
> +		if (bpf_pseudo_func(insn)) {
>   			/* fixed-length insns for extra jit pass */
> -			emit_addr(rd, imm64, ctx);
> -		else
> +			ret = emit_addr(rd, imm64, extra_pass, ctx);
> +			if (ret)
> +				return ret;
> +		} else {
>   			emit_imm(rd, imm64, ctx);
> +		}
>   
>   		return 1;
>   	}
> 
> --8<--
> 
> Wouldn't that work?
> 

It definitely works. But auipc+addi may be some holes, while 
lui+addi+slli support all the address of kernel and module. And this 
might be help for the future feature porting.

> 
> Björn