[PATCH bpf] riscv, bpf: Emit fixed-length imm64 for BPF_PSEUDO_FUNC

[Björn Töpel]

Pu Lehui <pulehui at huaweicloud.com> writes:

> From: Pu Lehui <pulehui at huawei.com>
>
> For BPF_PSEUDO_FUNC instruction, verifier will refill imm with
> correct addresses of bpf_calls and then run last pass of JIT.
> Since the emit_imm of RV64 is variable-length, which will emit
> appropriate length instructions accorroding to the imm, it may
> broke ctx->offset, and lead to unpredictable problem, such as
> inaccurate jump. So let's fix it with fixed-length imm64 insns.

Ah, nice one! So, the the invariant doesn't hold (the image grow in the
last pass).

> Fixes: 69c087ba6225 ("bpf: Add bpf_for_each_map_elem() helper")

This is odd? This can't be the right Fixes-tag...

> Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui at huawei.com>
> ---
>  arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> index eb99df41fa33..f984d5fa014b 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> @@ -139,6 +139,30 @@ static bool in_auipc_jalr_range(s64 val)
>  		val < ((1L << 31) - (1L << 11));
>  }
>  
> +/* Emit fixed-length instructions for 32-bit imm */
> +static void emit_fixed_imm32(u8 rd, s32 val, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
> +{
> +	s32 upper = (val + (1U << 11)) >> 12;
> +	s32 lower = ((val & 0xfff) << 20) >> 20;
> +
> +	emit(rv_lui(rd, upper), ctx);
> +	emit(rv_addi(rd, rd, lower), ctx);
> +}
> +
> +/* Emit fixed-length instructions for 64-bit imm */
> +static void emit_fixed_imm64(u8 rd, s64 val, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
> +{
> +	/* Compensation for sign-extension of rv_addi */
> +	s32 imm_hi = (val + (1U << 31)) >> 32;
> +	s32 imm_lo = val;
> +
> +	emit_fixed_imm32(rd, imm_hi, ctx);
> +	emit_fixed_imm32(RV_REG_T1, imm_lo, ctx);
> +	emit(rv_slli(rd, rd, 32), ctx);
> +	emit(rv_add(rd, rd, RV_REG_T1), ctx);
> +}

Hmm, will this really be fixed? We can end up with compressed
instructions, which can then be a non-compressed in the last pass, and
we have the same problem?

The range of valid address for RV64 (sv39 to sv57) are
0xffffffff00000000 to 0xffffffffffffffff, so I think we can do better
than 6 insn, no? My gut feeling (I need to tinker a bit) is that 4
should be sufficient.

Note that worst case for a imm64 load are 8 instructions, but this is
not the general case.


Björn