Minki/linux
1
0
Fork 1
mirror of https://github.com/torvalds/linux.git synced 2024-12-02 09:01:34 +00:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
ce0761419f
linux/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c

1057 lines
29 KiB
C
Raw Normal View History

powerpc/ebpf/jit: Implement JIT compiler for extended BPF PPC64 eBPF JIT compiler. Enable with: echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable or echo 2 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable ... to see the generated JIT code. This can further be processed with tools/net/bpf_jit_disasm. With CONFIG_TEST_BPF=m and 'modprobe test_bpf': test_bpf: Summary: 305 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [297/297 JIT'ed] ... on both ppc64 BE and LE. The details of the approach are documented through various comments in the code. Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-06-22 16:25:07 +00:00
/*
* bpf_jit_comp64.c: eBPF JIT compiler
*
* Copyright 2016 Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
* IBM Corporation
*
* Based on the powerpc classic BPF JIT compiler by Matt Evans
*
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
* modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
* as published by the Free Software Foundation; version 2
* of the License.
*/
#include <linux/moduleloader.h>
#include <asm/cacheflush.h>
#include <linux/netdevice.h>
#include <linux/filter.h>
#include <linux/if_vlan.h>
#include <asm/kprobes.h>
powerpc/bpf: Implement support for tail calls Tail calls allow JIT'ed eBPF programs to call into other JIT'ed eBPF programs. This can be achieved either by: (1) retaining the stack setup by the first eBPF program and having all subsequent eBPF programs re-using it, or, (2) by unwinding/tearing down the stack and having each eBPF program deal with its own stack as it sees fit. To ensure that this does not create loops, there is a limit to how many tail calls can be done (currently 32). This requires the JIT'ed code to maintain a count of the number of tail calls done so far. Approach (1) is simple, but requires every eBPF program to have (almost) the same prologue/epilogue, regardless of whether they need it. This is inefficient for small eBPF programs which may not sometimes need a prologue at all. As such, to minimize impact of tail call implementation, we use approach (2) here which needs each eBPF program in the chain to use its own prologue/epilogue. This is not ideal when many tail calls are involved and when all the eBPF programs in the chain have similar prologue/epilogue. However, the impact is restricted to programs that do tail calls. Individual eBPF programs are not affected. We maintain the tail call count in a fixed location on the stack and updated tail call count values are passed in through this. The very first eBPF program in a chain sets this up to 0 (the first 2 instructions). Subsequent tail calls skip the first two eBPF JIT instructions to maintain the count. For programs that don't do tail calls themselves, the first two instructions are NOPs. Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-09-23 20:35:01 +00:00
#include <linux/bpf.h>
powerpc/ebpf/jit: Implement JIT compiler for extended BPF PPC64 eBPF JIT compiler. Enable with: echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable or echo 2 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable ... to see the generated JIT code. This can further be processed with tools/net/bpf_jit_disasm. With CONFIG_TEST_BPF=m and 'modprobe test_bpf': test_bpf: Summary: 305 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [297/297 JIT'ed] ... on both ppc64 BE and LE. The details of the approach are documented through various comments in the code. Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-06-22 16:25:07 +00:00
#include "bpf_jit64.h"
int bpf_jit_enable __read_mostly;
static void bpf_jit_fill_ill_insns(void *area, unsigned int size)
{
int *p = area;
/* Fill whole space with trap instructions */
while (p < (int *)((char *)area + size))
*p++ = BREAKPOINT_INSTRUCTION;
}
static inline void bpf_flush_icache(void *start, void *end)
{
smp_wmb();
flush_icache_range((unsigned long)start, (unsigned long)end);
}
static inline bool bpf_is_seen_register(struct codegen_context *ctx, int i)
{
return (ctx->seen & (1 << (31 - b2p[i])));
}
static inline void bpf_set_seen_register(struct codegen_context *ctx, int i)
{
ctx->seen |= (1 << (31 - b2p[i]));
}
static inline bool bpf_has_stack_frame(struct codegen_context *ctx)
{
/*
* We only need a stack frame if:
* - we call other functions (kernel helpers), or
* - the bpf program uses its stack area
* The latter condition is deduced from the usage of BPF_REG_FP
*/
return ctx->seen & SEEN_FUNC || bpf_is_seen_register(ctx, BPF_REG_FP);
}
powerpc/bpf: Introduce accessors for using the tmp local stack space While at it, ensure that the location of the local save area is consistent whether or not we setup our own stackframe. This property is utilised in the next patch that adds support for tail calls. Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-09-23 20:35:00 +00:00
/*
* When not setting up our own stackframe, the redzone usage is:
*
* [ prev sp ] <-------------
* [ ... ] |
* sp (r1) ---> [ stack pointer ] --------------
* [ nv gpr save area ] 8*8
* [ tail_call_cnt ] 8
* [ local_tmp_var ] 8
* [ unused red zone ] 208 bytes protected
*/
static int bpf_jit_stack_local(struct codegen_context *ctx)
{
if (bpf_has_stack_frame(ctx))
return STACK_FRAME_MIN_SIZE + MAX_BPF_STACK;
else
return -(BPF_PPC_STACK_SAVE + 16);
}
powerpc/bpf: Implement support for tail calls Tail calls allow JIT'ed eBPF programs to call into other JIT'ed eBPF programs. This can be achieved either by: (1) retaining the stack setup by the first eBPF program and having all subsequent eBPF programs re-using it, or, (2) by unwinding/tearing down the stack and having each eBPF program deal with its own stack as it sees fit. To ensure that this does not create loops, there is a limit to how many tail calls can be done (currently 32). This requires the JIT'ed code to maintain a count of the number of tail calls done so far. Approach (1) is simple, but requires every eBPF program to have (almost) the same prologue/epilogue, regardless of whether they need it. This is inefficient for small eBPF programs which may not sometimes need a prologue at all. As such, to minimize impact of tail call implementation, we use approach (2) here which needs each eBPF program in the chain to use its own prologue/epilogue. This is not ideal when many tail calls are involved and when all the eBPF programs in the chain have similar prologue/epilogue. However, the impact is restricted to programs that do tail calls. Individual eBPF programs are not affected. We maintain the tail call count in a fixed location on the stack and updated tail call count values are passed in through this. The very first eBPF program in a chain sets this up to 0 (the first 2 instructions). Subsequent tail calls skip the first two eBPF JIT instructions to maintain the count. For programs that don't do tail calls themselves, the first two instructions are NOPs. Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-09-23 20:35:01 +00:00
static int bpf_jit_stack_tailcallcnt(struct codegen_context *ctx)
{
return bpf_jit_stack_local(ctx) + 8;
}
powerpc/bpf: Introduce accessors for using the tmp local stack space While at it, ensure that the location of the local save area is consistent whether or not we setup our own stackframe. This property is utilised in the next patch that adds support for tail calls. Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-09-23 20:35:00 +00:00
static int bpf_jit_stack_offsetof(struct codegen_context *ctx, int reg)
{
if (reg >= BPF_PPC_NVR_MIN && reg < 32)
return (bpf_has_stack_frame(ctx) ? BPF_PPC_STACKFRAME : 0)
- (8 * (32 - reg));
pr_err("BPF JIT is asking about unknown registers");
BUG();
}
powerpc/ebpf/jit: Implement JIT compiler for extended BPF PPC64 eBPF JIT compiler. Enable with: echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable or echo 2 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable ... to see the generated JIT code. This can further be processed with tools/net/bpf_jit_disasm. With CONFIG_TEST_BPF=m and 'modprobe test_bpf': test_bpf: Summary: 305 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [297/297 JIT'ed] ... on both ppc64 BE and LE. The details of the approach are documented through various comments in the code. Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-06-22 16:25:07 +00:00
static void bpf_jit_emit_skb_loads(u32 *image, struct codegen_context *ctx)
{
/*
* Load skb->len and skb->data_len
* r3 points to skb
*/
PPC_LWZ(b2p[SKB_HLEN_REG], 3, offsetof(struct sk_buff, len));
PPC_LWZ(b2p[TMP_REG_1], 3, offsetof(struct sk_buff, data_len));
/* header_len = len - data_len */
PPC_SUB(b2p[SKB_HLEN_REG], b2p[SKB_HLEN_REG], b2p[TMP_REG_1]);
/* skb->data pointer */
PPC_BPF_LL(b2p[SKB_DATA_REG], 3, offsetof(struct sk_buff, data));
}
powerpc/bpf: Implement support for tail calls Tail calls allow JIT'ed eBPF programs to call into other JIT'ed eBPF programs. This can be achieved either by: (1) retaining the stack setup by the first eBPF program and having all subsequent eBPF programs re-using it, or, (2) by unwinding/tearing down the stack and having each eBPF program deal with its own stack as it sees fit. To ensure that this does not create loops, there is a limit to how many tail calls can be done (currently 32). This requires the JIT'ed code to maintain a count of the number of tail calls done so far. Approach (1) is simple, but requires every eBPF program to have (almost) the same prologue/epilogue, regardless of whether they need it. This is inefficient for small eBPF programs which may not sometimes need a prologue at all. As such, to minimize impact of tail call implementation, we use approach (2) here which needs each eBPF program in the chain to use its own prologue/epilogue. This is not ideal when many tail calls are involved and when all the eBPF programs in the chain have similar prologue/epilogue. However, the impact is restricted to programs that do tail calls. Individual eBPF programs are not affected. We maintain the tail call count in a fixed location on the stack and updated tail call count values are passed in through this. The very first eBPF program in a chain sets this up to 0 (the first 2 instructions). Subsequent tail calls skip the first two eBPF JIT instructions to maintain the count. For programs that don't do tail calls themselves, the first two instructions are NOPs. Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-09-23 20:35:01 +00:00
static void bpf_jit_build_prologue(u32 *image, struct codegen_context *ctx)
powerpc/ebpf/jit: Implement JIT compiler for extended BPF PPC64 eBPF JIT compiler. Enable with: echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable or echo 2 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable ... to see the generated JIT code. This can further be processed with tools/net/bpf_jit_disasm. With CONFIG_TEST_BPF=m and 'modprobe test_bpf': test_bpf: Summary: 305 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [297/297 JIT'ed] ... on both ppc64 BE and LE. The details of the approach are documented through various comments in the code. Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-06-22 16:25:07 +00:00
{
powerpc/bpf: Implement support for tail calls Tail calls allow JIT'ed eBPF programs to call into other JIT'ed eBPF programs. This can be achieved either by: (1) retaining the stack setup by the first eBPF program and having all subsequent eBPF programs re-using it, or, (2) by unwinding/tearing down the stack and having each eBPF program deal with its own stack as it sees fit. To ensure that this does not create loops, there is a limit to how many tail calls can be done (currently 32). This requires the JIT'ed code to maintain a count of the number of tail calls done so far. Approach (1) is simple, but requires every eBPF program to have (almost) the same prologue/epilogue, regardless of whether they need it. This is inefficient for small eBPF programs which may not sometimes need a prologue at all. As such, to minimize impact of tail call implementation, we use approach (2) here which needs each eBPF program in the chain to use its own prologue/epilogue. This is not ideal when many tail calls are involved and when all the eBPF programs in the chain have similar prologue/epilogue. However, the impact is restricted to programs that do tail calls. Individual eBPF programs are not affected. We maintain the tail call count in a fixed location on the stack and updated tail call count values are passed in through this. The very first eBPF program in a chain sets this up to 0 (the first 2 instructions). Subsequent tail calls skip the first two eBPF JIT instructions to maintain the count. For programs that don't do tail calls themselves, the first two instructions are NOPs. Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-09-23 20:35:01 +00:00
int i;
powerpc/ebpf/jit: Implement JIT compiler for extended BPF PPC64 eBPF JIT compiler. Enable with: echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable or echo 2 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable ... to see the generated JIT code. This can further be processed with tools/net/bpf_jit_disasm. With CONFIG_TEST_BPF=m and 'modprobe test_bpf': test_bpf: Summary: 305 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [297/297 JIT'ed] ... on both ppc64 BE and LE. The details of the approach are documented through various comments in the code. Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-06-22 16:25:07 +00:00
/*
powerpc/bpf: Implement support for tail calls Tail calls allow JIT'ed eBPF programs to call into other JIT'ed eBPF programs. This can be achieved either by: (1) retaining the stack setup by the first eBPF program and having all subsequent eBPF programs re-using it, or, (2) by unwinding/tearing down the stack and having each eBPF program deal with its own stack as it sees fit. To ensure that this does not create loops, there is a limit to how many tail calls can be done (currently 32). This requires the JIT'ed code to maintain a count of the number of tail calls done so far. Approach (1) is simple, but requires every eBPF program to have (almost) the same prologue/epilogue, regardless of whether they need it. This is inefficient for small eBPF programs which may not sometimes need a prologue at all. As such, to minimize impact of tail call implementation, we use approach (2) here which needs each eBPF program in the chain to use its own prologue/epilogue. This is not ideal when many tail calls are involved and when all the eBPF programs in the chain have similar prologue/epilogue. However, the impact is restricted to programs that do tail calls. Individual eBPF programs are not affected. We maintain the tail call count in a fixed location on the stack and updated tail call count values are passed in through this. The very first eBPF program in a chain sets this up to 0 (the first 2 instructions). Subsequent tail calls skip the first two eBPF JIT instructions to maintain the count. For programs that don't do tail calls themselves, the first two instructions are NOPs. Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-09-23 20:35:01 +00:00
* Initialize tail_call_cnt if we do tail calls.
* Otherwise, put in NOPs so that it can be skipped when we are
* invoked through a tail call.
powerpc/ebpf/jit: Implement JIT compiler for extended BPF PPC64 eBPF JIT compiler. Enable with: echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable or echo 2 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable ... to see the generated JIT code. This can further be processed with tools/net/bpf_jit_disasm. With CONFIG_TEST_BPF=m and 'modprobe test_bpf': test_bpf: Summary: 305 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [297/297 JIT'ed] ... on both ppc64 BE and LE. The details of the approach are documented through various comments in the code. Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-06-22 16:25:07 +00:00
*/
powerpc/bpf: Implement support for tail calls Tail calls allow JIT'ed eBPF programs to call into other JIT'ed eBPF programs. This can be achieved either by: (1) retaining the stack setup by the first eBPF program and having all subsequent eBPF programs re-using it, or, (2) by unwinding/tearing down the stack and having each eBPF program deal with its own stack as it sees fit. To ensure that this does not create loops, there is a limit to how many tail calls can be done (currently 32). This requires the JIT'ed code to maintain a count of the number of tail calls done so far. Approach (1) is simple, but requires every eBPF program to have (almost) the same prologue/epilogue, regardless of whether they need it. This is inefficient for small eBPF programs which may not sometimes need a prologue at all. As such, to minimize impact of tail call implementation, we use approach (2) here which needs each eBPF program in the chain to use its own prologue/epilogue. This is not ideal when many tail calls are involved and when all the eBPF programs in the chain have similar prologue/epilogue. However, the impact is restricted to programs that do tail calls. Individual eBPF programs are not affected. We maintain the tail call count in a fixed location on the stack and updated tail call count values are passed in through this. The very first eBPF program in a chain sets this up to 0 (the first 2 instructions). Subsequent tail calls skip the first two eBPF JIT instructions to maintain the count. For programs that don't do tail calls themselves, the first two instructions are NOPs. Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-09-23 20:35:01 +00:00
if (ctx->seen & SEEN_TAILCALL) {
PPC_LI(b2p[TMP_REG_1], 0);
/* this goes in the redzone */
PPC_BPF_STL(b2p[TMP_REG_1], 1, -(BPF_PPC_STACK_SAVE + 8));
} else {
PPC_NOP();
PPC_NOP();
}
powerpc/ebpf/jit: Implement JIT compiler for extended BPF PPC64 eBPF JIT compiler. Enable with: echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable or echo 2 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable ... to see the generated JIT code. This can further be processed with tools/net/bpf_jit_disasm. With CONFIG_TEST_BPF=m and 'modprobe test_bpf': test_bpf: Summary: 305 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [297/297 JIT'ed] ... on both ppc64 BE and LE. The details of the approach are documented through various comments in the code. Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-06-22 16:25:07 +00:00
powerpc/bpf: Implement support for tail calls Tail calls allow JIT'ed eBPF programs to call into other JIT'ed eBPF programs. This can be achieved either by: (1) retaining the stack setup by the first eBPF program and having all subsequent eBPF programs re-using it, or, (2) by unwinding/tearing down the stack and having each eBPF program deal with its own stack as it sees fit. To ensure that this does not create loops, there is a limit to how many tail calls can be done (currently 32). This requires the JIT'ed code to maintain a count of the number of tail calls done so far. Approach (1) is simple, but requires every eBPF program to have (almost) the same prologue/epilogue, regardless of whether they need it. This is inefficient for small eBPF programs which may not sometimes need a prologue at all. As such, to minimize impact of tail call implementation, we use approach (2) here which needs each eBPF program in the chain to use its own prologue/epilogue. This is not ideal when many tail calls are involved and when all the eBPF programs in the chain have similar prologue/epilogue. However, the impact is restricted to programs that do tail calls. Individual eBPF programs are not affected. We maintain the tail call count in a fixed location on the stack and updated tail call count values are passed in through this. The very first eBPF program in a chain sets this up to 0 (the first 2 instructions). Subsequent tail calls skip the first two eBPF JIT instructions to maintain the count. For programs that don't do tail calls themselves, the first two instructions are NOPs. Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-09-23 20:35:01 +00:00
#define BPF_TAILCALL_PROLOGUE_SIZE 8
powerpc/ebpf/jit: Implement JIT compiler for extended BPF PPC64 eBPF JIT compiler. Enable with: echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable or echo 2 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable ... to see the generated JIT code. This can further be processed with tools/net/bpf_jit_disasm. With CONFIG_TEST_BPF=m and 'modprobe test_bpf': test_bpf: Summary: 305 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [297/297 JIT'ed] ... on both ppc64 BE and LE. The details of the approach are documented through various comments in the code. Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-06-22 16:25:07 +00:00
powerpc/bpf: Introduce accessors for using the tmp local stack space While at it, ensure that the location of the local save area is consistent whether or not we setup our own stackframe. This property is utilised in the next patch that adds support for tail calls. Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-09-23 20:35:00 +00:00
if (bpf_has_stack_frame(ctx)) {
powerpc/ebpf/jit: Implement JIT compiler for extended BPF PPC64 eBPF JIT compiler. Enable with: echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable or echo 2 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable ... to see the generated JIT code. This can further be processed with tools/net/bpf_jit_disasm. With CONFIG_TEST_BPF=m and 'modprobe test_bpf': test_bpf: Summary: 305 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [297/297 JIT'ed] ... on both ppc64 BE and LE. The details of the approach are documented through various comments in the code. Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-06-22 16:25:07 +00:00
/*
* We need a stack frame, but we don't necessarily need to
* save/restore LR unless we call other functions
*/
if (ctx->seen & SEEN_FUNC) {
EMIT(PPC_INST_MFLR | __PPC_RT(R0));
PPC_BPF_STL(0, 1, PPC_LR_STKOFF);
}
PPC_BPF_STLU(1, 1, -BPF_PPC_STACKFRAME);
}
/*
* Back up non-volatile regs -- BPF registers 6-10
* If we haven't created our own stack frame, we save these
* in the protected zone below the previous stack frame
*/
for (i = BPF_REG_6; i <= BPF_REG_10; i++)
if (bpf_is_seen_register(ctx, i))
powerpc/bpf: Introduce accessors for using the tmp local stack space While at it, ensure that the location of the local save area is consistent whether or not we setup our own stackframe. This property is utilised in the next patch that adds support for tail calls. Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-09-23 20:35:00 +00:00
PPC_BPF_STL(b2p[i], 1, bpf_jit_stack_offsetof(ctx, b2p[i]));
powerpc/ebpf/jit: Implement JIT compiler for extended BPF PPC64 eBPF JIT compiler. Enable with: echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable or echo 2 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable ... to see the generated JIT code. This can further be processed with tools/net/bpf_jit_disasm. With CONFIG_TEST_BPF=m and 'modprobe test_bpf': test_bpf: Summary: 305 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [297/297 JIT'ed] ... on both ppc64 BE and LE. The details of the approach are documented through various comments in the code. Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-06-22 16:25:07 +00:00
/*
* Save additional non-volatile regs if we cache skb
* Also, setup skb data
*/
if (ctx->seen & SEEN_SKB) {
PPC_BPF_STL(b2p[SKB_HLEN_REG], 1,
powerpc/bpf: Introduce accessors for using the tmp local stack space While at it, ensure that the location of the local save area is consistent whether or not we setup our own stackframe. This property is utilised in the next patch that adds support for tail calls. Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-09-23 20:35:00 +00:00
bpf_jit_stack_offsetof(ctx, b2p[SKB_HLEN_REG]));
powerpc/ebpf/jit: Implement JIT compiler for extended BPF PPC64 eBPF JIT compiler. Enable with: echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable or echo 2 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable ... to see the generated JIT code. This can further be processed with tools/net/bpf_jit_disasm. With CONFIG_TEST_BPF=m and 'modprobe test_bpf': test_bpf: Summary: 305 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [297/297 JIT'ed] ... on both ppc64 BE and LE. The details of the approach are documented through various comments in the code. Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-06-22 16:25:07 +00:00
PPC_BPF_STL(b2p[SKB_DATA_REG], 1,
powerpc/bpf: Introduce accessors for using the tmp local stack space While at it, ensure that the location of the local save area is consistent whether or not we setup our own stackframe. This property is utilised in the next patch that adds support for tail calls. Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-09-23 20:35:00 +00:00
bpf_jit_stack_offsetof(ctx, b2p[SKB_DATA_REG]));
powerpc/ebpf/jit: Implement JIT compiler for extended BPF PPC64 eBPF JIT compiler. Enable with: echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable or echo 2 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable ... to see the generated JIT code. This can further be processed with tools/net/bpf_jit_disasm. With CONFIG_TEST_BPF=m and 'modprobe test_bpf': test_bpf: Summary: 305 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [297/297 JIT'ed] ... on both ppc64 BE and LE. The details of the approach are documented through various comments in the code. Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-06-22 16:25:07 +00:00
bpf_jit_emit_skb_loads(image, ctx);
}
/* Setup frame pointer to point to the bpf stack area */
if (bpf_is_seen_register(ctx, BPF_REG_FP))
PPC_ADDI(b2p[BPF_REG_FP], 1,
powerpc/bpf: Introduce accessors for using the tmp local stack space While at it, ensure that the location of the local save area is consistent whether or not we setup our own stackframe. This property is utilised in the next patch that adds support for tail calls. Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-09-23 20:35:00 +00:00
STACK_FRAME_MIN_SIZE + MAX_BPF_STACK);
powerpc/ebpf/jit: Implement JIT compiler for extended BPF PPC64 eBPF JIT compiler. Enable with: echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable or echo 2 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable ... to see the generated JIT code. This can further be processed with tools/net/bpf_jit_disasm. With CONFIG_TEST_BPF=m and 'modprobe test_bpf': test_bpf: Summary: 305 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [297/297 JIT'ed] ... on both ppc64 BE and LE. The details of the approach are documented through various comments in the code. Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-06-22 16:25:07 +00:00
}
powerpc/bpf: Implement support for tail calls Tail calls allow JIT'ed eBPF programs to call into other JIT'ed eBPF programs. This can be achieved either by: (1) retaining the stack setup by the first eBPF program and having all subsequent eBPF programs re-using it, or, (2) by unwinding/tearing down the stack and having each eBPF program deal with its own stack as it sees fit. To ensure that this does not create loops, there is a limit to how many tail calls can be done (currently 32). This requires the JIT'ed code to maintain a count of the number of tail calls done so far. Approach (1) is simple, but requires every eBPF program to have (almost) the same prologue/epilogue, regardless of whether they need it. This is inefficient for small eBPF programs which may not sometimes need a prologue at all. As such, to minimize impact of tail call implementation, we use approach (2) here which needs each eBPF program in the chain to use its own prologue/epilogue. This is not ideal when many tail calls are involved and when all the eBPF programs in the chain have similar prologue/epilogue. However, the impact is restricted to programs that do tail calls. Individual eBPF programs are not affected. We maintain the tail call count in a fixed location on the stack and updated tail call count values are passed in through this. The very first eBPF program in a chain sets this up to 0 (the first 2 instructions). Subsequent tail calls skip the first two eBPF JIT instructions to maintain the count. For programs that don't do tail calls themselves, the first two instructions are NOPs. Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-09-23 20:35:01 +00:00
static void bpf_jit_emit_common_epilogue(u32 *image, struct codegen_context *ctx)
powerpc/ebpf/jit: Implement JIT compiler for extended BPF PPC64 eBPF JIT compiler. Enable with: echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable or echo 2 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable ... to see the generated JIT code. This can further be processed with tools/net/bpf_jit_disasm. With CONFIG_TEST_BPF=m and 'modprobe test_bpf': test_bpf: Summary: 305 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [297/297 JIT'ed] ... on both ppc64 BE and LE. The details of the approach are documented through various comments in the code. Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-06-22 16:25:07 +00:00
{
int i;
/* Restore NVRs */
for (i = BPF_REG_6; i <= BPF_REG_10; i++)
if (bpf_is_seen_register(ctx, i))
powerpc/bpf: Introduce accessors for using the tmp local stack space While at it, ensure that the location of the local save area is consistent whether or not we setup our own stackframe. This property is utilised in the next patch that adds support for tail calls. Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-09-23 20:35:00 +00:00
PPC_BPF_LL(b2p[i], 1, bpf_jit_stack_offsetof(ctx, b2p[i]));
powerpc/ebpf/jit: Implement JIT compiler for extended BPF PPC64 eBPF JIT compiler. Enable with: echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable or echo 2 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable ... to see the generated JIT code. This can further be processed with tools/net/bpf_jit_disasm. With CONFIG_TEST_BPF=m and 'modprobe test_bpf': test_bpf: Summary: 305 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [297/297 JIT'ed] ... on both ppc64 BE and LE. The details of the approach are documented through various comments in the code. Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-06-22 16:25:07 +00:00
/* Restore non-volatile registers used for skb cache */
if (ctx->seen & SEEN_SKB) {
PPC_BPF_LL(b2p[SKB_HLEN_REG], 1,
powerpc/bpf: Introduce accessors for using the tmp local stack space While at it, ensure that the location of the local save area is consistent whether or not we setup our own stackframe. This property is utilised in the next patch that adds support for tail calls. Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-09-23 20:35:00 +00:00
bpf_jit_stack_offsetof(ctx, b2p[SKB_HLEN_REG]));
powerpc/ebpf/jit: Implement JIT compiler for extended BPF PPC64 eBPF JIT compiler. Enable with: echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable or echo 2 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable ... to see the generated JIT code. This can further be processed with tools/net/bpf_jit_disasm. With CONFIG_TEST_BPF=m and 'modprobe test_bpf': test_bpf: Summary: 305 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [297/297 JIT'ed] ... on both ppc64 BE and LE. The details of the approach are documented through various comments in the code. Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-06-22 16:25:07 +00:00
PPC_BPF_LL(b2p[SKB_DATA_REG], 1,
powerpc/bpf: Introduce accessors for using the tmp local stack space While at it, ensure that the location of the local save area is consistent whether or not we setup our own stackframe. This property is utilised in the next patch that adds support for tail calls. Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-09-23 20:35:00 +00:00
bpf_jit_stack_offsetof(ctx, b2p[SKB_DATA_REG]));
powerpc/ebpf/jit: Implement JIT compiler for extended BPF PPC64 eBPF JIT compiler. Enable with: echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable or echo 2 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable ... to see the generated JIT code. This can further be processed with tools/net/bpf_jit_disasm. With CONFIG_TEST_BPF=m and 'modprobe test_bpf': test_bpf: Summary: 305 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [297/297 JIT'ed] ... on both ppc64 BE and LE. The details of the approach are documented through various comments in the code. Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-06-22 16:25:07 +00:00
}
/* Tear down our stack frame */
powerpc/bpf: Introduce accessors for using the tmp local stack space While at it, ensure that the location of the local save area is consistent whether or not we setup our own stackframe. This property is utilised in the next patch that adds support for tail calls. Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-09-23 20:35:00 +00:00
if (bpf_has_stack_frame(ctx)) {
powerpc/ebpf/jit: Implement JIT compiler for extended BPF PPC64 eBPF JIT compiler. Enable with: echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable or echo 2 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable ... to see the generated JIT code. This can further be processed with tools/net/bpf_jit_disasm. With CONFIG_TEST_BPF=m and 'modprobe test_bpf': test_bpf: Summary: 305 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [297/297 JIT'ed] ... on both ppc64 BE and LE. The details of the approach are documented through various comments in the code. Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-06-22 16:25:07 +00:00
PPC_ADDI(1, 1, BPF_PPC_STACKFRAME);
if (ctx->seen & SEEN_FUNC) {
PPC_BPF_LL(0, 1, PPC_LR_STKOFF);
PPC_MTLR(0);
}
}
powerpc/bpf: Implement support for tail calls Tail calls allow JIT'ed eBPF programs to call into other JIT'ed eBPF programs. This can be achieved either by: (1) retaining the stack setup by the first eBPF program and having all subsequent eBPF programs re-using it, or, (2) by unwinding/tearing down the stack and having each eBPF program deal with its own stack as it sees fit. To ensure that this does not create loops, there is a limit to how many tail calls can be done (currently 32). This requires the JIT'ed code to maintain a count of the number of tail calls done so far. Approach (1) is simple, but requires every eBPF program to have (almost) the same prologue/epilogue, regardless of whether they need it. This is inefficient for small eBPF programs which may not sometimes need a prologue at all. As such, to minimize impact of tail call implementation, we use approach (2) here which needs each eBPF program in the chain to use its own prologue/epilogue. This is not ideal when many tail calls are involved and when all the eBPF programs in the chain have similar prologue/epilogue. However, the impact is restricted to programs that do tail calls. Individual eBPF programs are not affected. We maintain the tail call count in a fixed location on the stack and updated tail call count values are passed in through this. The very first eBPF program in a chain sets this up to 0 (the first 2 instructions). Subsequent tail calls skip the first two eBPF JIT instructions to maintain the count. For programs that don't do tail calls themselves, the first two instructions are NOPs. Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-09-23 20:35:01 +00:00
}
static void bpf_jit_build_epilogue(u32 *image, struct codegen_context *ctx)
{
bpf_jit_emit_common_epilogue(image, ctx);
/* Move result to r3 */
PPC_MR(3, b2p[BPF_REG_0]);
powerpc/ebpf/jit: Implement JIT compiler for extended BPF PPC64 eBPF JIT compiler. Enable with: echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable or echo 2 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable ... to see the generated JIT code. This can further be processed with tools/net/bpf_jit_disasm. With CONFIG_TEST_BPF=m and 'modprobe test_bpf': test_bpf: Summary: 305 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [297/297 JIT'ed] ... on both ppc64 BE and LE. The details of the approach are documented through various comments in the code. Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-06-22 16:25:07 +00:00
PPC_BLR();
}
powerpc/bpf: Implement support for tail calls Tail calls allow JIT'ed eBPF programs to call into other JIT'ed eBPF programs. This can be achieved either by: (1) retaining the stack setup by the first eBPF program and having all subsequent eBPF programs re-using it, or, (2) by unwinding/tearing down the stack and having each eBPF program deal with its own stack as it sees fit. To ensure that this does not create loops, there is a limit to how many tail calls can be done (currently 32). This requires the JIT'ed code to maintain a count of the number of tail calls done so far. Approach (1) is simple, but requires every eBPF program to have (almost) the same prologue/epilogue, regardless of whether they need it. This is inefficient for small eBPF programs which may not sometimes need a prologue at all. As such, to minimize impact of tail call implementation, we use approach (2) here which needs each eBPF program in the chain to use its own prologue/epilogue. This is not ideal when many tail calls are involved and when all the eBPF programs in the chain have similar prologue/epilogue. However, the impact is restricted to programs that do tail calls. Individual eBPF programs are not affected. We maintain the tail call count in a fixed location on the stack and updated tail call count values are passed in through this. The very first eBPF program in a chain sets this up to 0 (the first 2 instructions). Subsequent tail calls skip the first two eBPF JIT instructions to maintain the count. For programs that don't do tail calls themselves, the first two instructions are NOPs. Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-09-23 20:35:01 +00:00
static void bpf_jit_emit_func_call(u32 *image, struct codegen_context *ctx, u64 func)
{
#ifdef PPC64_ELF_ABI_v1
/* func points to the function descriptor */
PPC_LI64(b2p[TMP_REG_2], func);
/* Load actual entry point from function descriptor */
PPC_BPF_LL(b2p[TMP_REG_1], b2p[TMP_REG_2], 0);
/* ... and move it to LR */
PPC_MTLR(b2p[TMP_REG_1]);
/*
* Load TOC from function descriptor at offset 8.
* We can clobber r2 since we get called through a
* function pointer (so caller will save/restore r2)
* and since we don't use a TOC ourself.
*/
PPC_BPF_LL(2, b2p[TMP_REG_2], 8);
#else
/* We can clobber r12 */
PPC_FUNC_ADDR(12, func);
PPC_MTLR(12);
#endif
PPC_BLRL();
}
static void bpf_jit_emit_tail_call(u32 *image, struct codegen_context *ctx, u32 out)
{
/*
* By now, the eBPF program has already setup parameters in r3, r4 and r5
* r3/BPF_REG_1 - pointer to ctx -- passed as is to the next bpf program
* r4/BPF_REG_2 - pointer to bpf_array
* r5/BPF_REG_3 - index in bpf_array
*/
int b2p_bpf_array = b2p[BPF_REG_2];
int b2p_index = b2p[BPF_REG_3];
/*
* if (index >= array->map.max_entries)
* goto out;
*/
PPC_LWZ(b2p[TMP_REG_1], b2p_bpf_array, offsetof(struct bpf_array, map.max_entries));
PPC_CMPLW(b2p_index, b2p[TMP_REG_1]);
PPC_BCC(COND_GE, out);
/*
* if (tail_call_cnt > MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT)
* goto out;
*/
PPC_LD(b2p[TMP_REG_1], 1, bpf_jit_stack_tailcallcnt(ctx));
PPC_CMPLWI(b2p[TMP_REG_1], MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT);
PPC_BCC(COND_GT, out);
/*
* tail_call_cnt++;
*/
PPC_ADDI(b2p[TMP_REG_1], b2p[TMP_REG_1], 1);
PPC_BPF_STL(b2p[TMP_REG_1], 1, bpf_jit_stack_tailcallcnt(ctx));
/* prog = array->ptrs[index]; */
PPC_MULI(b2p[TMP_REG_1], b2p_index, 8);
PPC_ADD(b2p[TMP_REG_1], b2p[TMP_REG_1], b2p_bpf_array);
PPC_LD(b2p[TMP_REG_1], b2p[TMP_REG_1], offsetof(struct bpf_array, ptrs));
/*
* if (prog == NULL)
* goto out;
*/
PPC_CMPLDI(b2p[TMP_REG_1], 0);
PPC_BCC(COND_EQ, out);
/* goto *(prog->bpf_func + prologue_size); */
PPC_LD(b2p[TMP_REG_1], b2p[TMP_REG_1], offsetof(struct bpf_prog, bpf_func));
#ifdef PPC64_ELF_ABI_v1
/* skip past the function descriptor */
PPC_ADDI(b2p[TMP_REG_1], b2p[TMP_REG_1],
FUNCTION_DESCR_SIZE + BPF_TAILCALL_PROLOGUE_SIZE);
#else
PPC_ADDI(b2p[TMP_REG_1], b2p[TMP_REG_1], BPF_TAILCALL_PROLOGUE_SIZE);
#endif
PPC_MTCTR(b2p[TMP_REG_1]);
/* tear down stack, restore NVRs, ... */
bpf_jit_emit_common_epilogue(image, ctx);
PPC_BCTR();
/* out: */
}
powerpc/ebpf/jit: Implement JIT compiler for extended BPF PPC64 eBPF JIT compiler. Enable with: echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable or echo 2 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable ... to see the generated JIT code. This can further be processed with tools/net/bpf_jit_disasm. With CONFIG_TEST_BPF=m and 'modprobe test_bpf': test_bpf: Summary: 305 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [297/297 JIT'ed] ... on both ppc64 BE and LE. The details of the approach are documented through various comments in the code. Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-06-22 16:25:07 +00:00
/* Assemble the body code between the prologue & epilogue */
static int bpf_jit_build_body(struct bpf_prog *fp, u32 *image,
struct codegen_context *ctx,
u32 *addrs)
{
const struct bpf_insn *insn = fp->insnsi;
int flen = fp->len;
int i;
/* Start of epilogue code - will only be valid 2nd pass onwards */
u32 exit_addr = addrs[flen];
for (i = 0; i < flen; i++) {
u32 code = insn[i].code;
u32 dst_reg = b2p[insn[i].dst_reg];
u32 src_reg = b2p[insn[i].src_reg];
s16 off = insn[i].off;
s32 imm = insn[i].imm;
u64 imm64;
u8 *func;
u32 true_cond;
/*
* addrs[] maps a BPF bytecode address into a real offset from
* the start of the body code.
*/
addrs[i] = ctx->idx * 4;
/*
* As an optimization, we note down which non-volatile registers
* are used so that we can only save/restore those in our
* prologue and epilogue. We do this here regardless of whether
* the actual BPF instruction uses src/dst registers or not
* (for instance, BPF_CALL does not use them). The expectation
* is that those instructions will have src_reg/dst_reg set to
* 0. Even otherwise, we just lose some prologue/epilogue
* optimization but everything else should work without
* any issues.
*/
powerpc/bpf: Introduce accessors for using the tmp local stack space While at it, ensure that the location of the local save area is consistent whether or not we setup our own stackframe. This property is utilised in the next patch that adds support for tail calls. Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-09-23 20:35:00 +00:00
if (dst_reg >= BPF_PPC_NVR_MIN && dst_reg < 32)
powerpc/ebpf/jit: Implement JIT compiler for extended BPF PPC64 eBPF JIT compiler. Enable with: echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable or echo 2 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable ... to see the generated JIT code. This can further be processed with tools/net/bpf_jit_disasm. With CONFIG_TEST_BPF=m and 'modprobe test_bpf': test_bpf: Summary: 305 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [297/297 JIT'ed] ... on both ppc64 BE and LE. The details of the approach are documented through various comments in the code. Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-06-22 16:25:07 +00:00
bpf_set_seen_register(ctx, insn[i].dst_reg);
powerpc/bpf: Introduce accessors for using the tmp local stack space While at it, ensure that the location of the local save area is consistent whether or not we setup our own stackframe. This property is utilised in the next patch that adds support for tail calls. Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-09-23 20:35:00 +00:00
if (src_reg >= BPF_PPC_NVR_MIN && src_reg < 32)
powerpc/ebpf/jit: Implement JIT compiler for extended BPF PPC64 eBPF JIT compiler. Enable with: echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable or echo 2 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable ... to see the generated JIT code. This can further be processed with tools/net/bpf_jit_disasm. With CONFIG_TEST_BPF=m and 'modprobe test_bpf': test_bpf: Summary: 305 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [297/297 JIT'ed] ... on both ppc64 BE and LE. The details of the approach are documented through various comments in the code. Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-06-22 16:25:07 +00:00
bpf_set_seen_register(ctx, insn[i].src_reg);
switch (code) {
/*
* Arithmetic operations: ADD/SUB/MUL/DIV/MOD/NEG
*/
case BPF_ALU | BPF_ADD | BPF_X: /* (u32) dst += (u32) src */
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_ADD | BPF_X: /* dst += src */
PPC_ADD(dst_reg, dst_reg, src_reg);
goto bpf_alu32_trunc;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_SUB | BPF_X: /* (u32) dst -= (u32) src */
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_SUB | BPF_X: /* dst -= src */
PPC_SUB(dst_reg, dst_reg, src_reg);
goto bpf_alu32_trunc;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_ADD | BPF_K: /* (u32) dst += (u32) imm */
case BPF_ALU | BPF_SUB | BPF_K: /* (u32) dst -= (u32) imm */
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_ADD | BPF_K: /* dst += imm */
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_SUB | BPF_K: /* dst -= imm */
if (BPF_OP(code) == BPF_SUB)
imm = -imm;
if (imm) {
if (imm >= -32768 && imm < 32768)
PPC_ADDI(dst_reg, dst_reg, IMM_L(imm));
else {
PPC_LI32(b2p[TMP_REG_1], imm);
PPC_ADD(dst_reg, dst_reg, b2p[TMP_REG_1]);
}
}
goto bpf_alu32_trunc;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_MUL | BPF_X: /* (u32) dst *= (u32) src */
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MUL | BPF_X: /* dst *= src */
if (BPF_CLASS(code) == BPF_ALU)
PPC_MULW(dst_reg, dst_reg, src_reg);
else
PPC_MULD(dst_reg, dst_reg, src_reg);
goto bpf_alu32_trunc;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_MUL | BPF_K: /* (u32) dst *= (u32) imm */
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MUL | BPF_K: /* dst *= imm */
if (imm >= -32768 && imm < 32768)
PPC_MULI(dst_reg, dst_reg, IMM_L(imm));
else {
PPC_LI32(b2p[TMP_REG_1], imm);
if (BPF_CLASS(code) == BPF_ALU)
PPC_MULW(dst_reg, dst_reg,
b2p[TMP_REG_1]);
else
PPC_MULD(dst_reg, dst_reg,
b2p[TMP_REG_1]);
}
goto bpf_alu32_trunc;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_DIV | BPF_X: /* (u32) dst /= (u32) src */
case BPF_ALU | BPF_MOD | BPF_X: /* (u32) dst %= (u32) src */
PPC_CMPWI(src_reg, 0);
PPC_BCC_SHORT(COND_NE, (ctx->idx * 4) + 12);
PPC_LI(b2p[BPF_REG_0], 0);
PPC_JMP(exit_addr);
if (BPF_OP(code) == BPF_MOD) {
PPC_DIVWU(b2p[TMP_REG_1], dst_reg, src_reg);
PPC_MULW(b2p[TMP_REG_1], src_reg,
b2p[TMP_REG_1]);
PPC_SUB(dst_reg, dst_reg, b2p[TMP_REG_1]);
} else
PPC_DIVWU(dst_reg, dst_reg, src_reg);
goto bpf_alu32_trunc;
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_DIV | BPF_X: /* dst /= src */
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOD | BPF_X: /* dst %= src */
PPC_CMPDI(src_reg, 0);
PPC_BCC_SHORT(COND_NE, (ctx->idx * 4) + 12);
PPC_LI(b2p[BPF_REG_0], 0);
PPC_JMP(exit_addr);
if (BPF_OP(code) == BPF_MOD) {
PPC_DIVD(b2p[TMP_REG_1], dst_reg, src_reg);
PPC_MULD(b2p[TMP_REG_1], src_reg,
b2p[TMP_REG_1]);
PPC_SUB(dst_reg, dst_reg, b2p[TMP_REG_1]);
} else
PPC_DIVD(dst_reg, dst_reg, src_reg);
break;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_MOD | BPF_K: /* (u32) dst %= (u32) imm */
case BPF_ALU | BPF_DIV | BPF_K: /* (u32) dst /= (u32) imm */
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOD | BPF_K: /* dst %= imm */
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_DIV | BPF_K: /* dst /= imm */
if (imm == 0)
return -EINVAL;
else if (imm == 1)
goto bpf_alu32_trunc;
PPC_LI32(b2p[TMP_REG_1], imm);
switch (BPF_CLASS(code)) {
case BPF_ALU:
if (BPF_OP(code) == BPF_MOD) {
PPC_DIVWU(b2p[TMP_REG_2], dst_reg,
b2p[TMP_REG_1]);
PPC_MULW(b2p[TMP_REG_1],
b2p[TMP_REG_1],
b2p[TMP_REG_2]);
PPC_SUB(dst_reg, dst_reg,
b2p[TMP_REG_1]);
} else
PPC_DIVWU(dst_reg, dst_reg,
b2p[TMP_REG_1]);
break;
case BPF_ALU64:
if (BPF_OP(code) == BPF_MOD) {
PPC_DIVD(b2p[TMP_REG_2], dst_reg,
b2p[TMP_REG_1]);
PPC_MULD(b2p[TMP_REG_1],
b2p[TMP_REG_1],
b2p[TMP_REG_2]);
PPC_SUB(dst_reg, dst_reg,
b2p[TMP_REG_1]);
} else
PPC_DIVD(dst_reg, dst_reg,
b2p[TMP_REG_1]);
break;
}
goto bpf_alu32_trunc;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_NEG: /* (u32) dst = -dst */
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_NEG: /* dst = -dst */
PPC_NEG(dst_reg, dst_reg);
goto bpf_alu32_trunc;
/*
* Logical operations: AND/OR/XOR/[A]LSH/[A]RSH
*/
case BPF_ALU | BPF_AND | BPF_X: /* (u32) dst = dst & src */
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_AND | BPF_X: /* dst = dst & src */
PPC_AND(dst_reg, dst_reg, src_reg);
goto bpf_alu32_trunc;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_AND | BPF_K: /* (u32) dst = dst & imm */
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_AND | BPF_K: /* dst = dst & imm */
if (!IMM_H(imm))
PPC_ANDI(dst_reg, dst_reg, IMM_L(imm));
else {
/* Sign-extended */
PPC_LI32(b2p[TMP_REG_1], imm);
PPC_AND(dst_reg, dst_reg, b2p[TMP_REG_1]);
}
goto bpf_alu32_trunc;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_OR | BPF_X: /* dst = (u32) dst | (u32) src */
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_OR | BPF_X: /* dst = dst | src */
PPC_OR(dst_reg, dst_reg, src_reg);
goto bpf_alu32_trunc;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_OR | BPF_K:/* dst = (u32) dst | (u32) imm */
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_OR | BPF_K:/* dst = dst | imm */
if (imm < 0 && BPF_CLASS(code) == BPF_ALU64) {
/* Sign-extended */
PPC_LI32(b2p[TMP_REG_1], imm);
PPC_OR(dst_reg, dst_reg, b2p[TMP_REG_1]);
} else {
if (IMM_L(imm))
PPC_ORI(dst_reg, dst_reg, IMM_L(imm));
if (IMM_H(imm))
PPC_ORIS(dst_reg, dst_reg, IMM_H(imm));
}
goto bpf_alu32_trunc;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_XOR | BPF_X: /* (u32) dst ^= src */
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_XOR | BPF_X: /* dst ^= src */
PPC_XOR(dst_reg, dst_reg, src_reg);
goto bpf_alu32_trunc;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_XOR | BPF_K: /* (u32) dst ^= (u32) imm */
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_XOR | BPF_K: /* dst ^= imm */
if (imm < 0 && BPF_CLASS(code) == BPF_ALU64) {
/* Sign-extended */
PPC_LI32(b2p[TMP_REG_1], imm);
PPC_XOR(dst_reg, dst_reg, b2p[TMP_REG_1]);
} else {
if (IMM_L(imm))
PPC_XORI(dst_reg, dst_reg, IMM_L(imm));
if (IMM_H(imm))
PPC_XORIS(dst_reg, dst_reg, IMM_H(imm));
}
goto bpf_alu32_trunc;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_LSH | BPF_X: /* (u32) dst <<= (u32) src */
/* slw clears top 32 bits */
PPC_SLW(dst_reg, dst_reg, src_reg);
break;
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_LSH | BPF_X: /* dst <<= src; */
PPC_SLD(dst_reg, dst_reg, src_reg);
break;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_LSH | BPF_K: /* (u32) dst <<== (u32) imm */
/* with imm 0, we still need to clear top 32 bits */
PPC_SLWI(dst_reg, dst_reg, imm);
break;
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_LSH | BPF_K: /* dst <<== imm */
if (imm != 0)
PPC_SLDI(dst_reg, dst_reg, imm);
break;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_RSH | BPF_X: /* (u32) dst >>= (u32) src */
PPC_SRW(dst_reg, dst_reg, src_reg);
break;
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_RSH | BPF_X: /* dst >>= src */
PPC_SRD(dst_reg, dst_reg, src_reg);
break;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_RSH | BPF_K: /* (u32) dst >>= (u32) imm */
PPC_SRWI(dst_reg, dst_reg, imm);
break;
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_RSH | BPF_K: /* dst >>= imm */
if (imm != 0)
PPC_SRDI(dst_reg, dst_reg, imm);
break;
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_ARSH | BPF_X: /* (s64) dst >>= src */
PPC_SRAD(dst_reg, dst_reg, src_reg);
break;
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_ARSH | BPF_K: /* (s64) dst >>= imm */
if (imm != 0)
PPC_SRADI(dst_reg, dst_reg, imm);
break;
/*
* MOV
*/
case BPF_ALU | BPF_MOV | BPF_X: /* (u32) dst = src */
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOV | BPF_X: /* dst = src */
PPC_MR(dst_reg, src_reg);
goto bpf_alu32_trunc;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_MOV | BPF_K: /* (u32) dst = imm */
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOV | BPF_K: /* dst = (s64) imm */
PPC_LI32(dst_reg, imm);
if (imm < 0)
goto bpf_alu32_trunc;
break;
bpf_alu32_trunc:
/* Truncate to 32-bits */
if (BPF_CLASS(code) == BPF_ALU)
PPC_RLWINM(dst_reg, dst_reg, 0, 0, 31);
break;
/*
* BPF_FROM_BE/LE
*/
case BPF_ALU | BPF_END | BPF_FROM_LE:
case BPF_ALU | BPF_END | BPF_FROM_BE:
#ifdef __BIG_ENDIAN__
if (BPF_SRC(code) == BPF_FROM_BE)
goto emit_clear;
#else /* !__BIG_ENDIAN__ */
if (BPF_SRC(code) == BPF_FROM_LE)
goto emit_clear;
#endif
switch (imm) {
case 16:
/* Rotate 8 bits left & mask with 0x0000ff00 */
PPC_RLWINM(b2p[TMP_REG_1], dst_reg, 8, 16, 23);
/* Rotate 8 bits right & insert LSB to reg */
PPC_RLWIMI(b2p[TMP_REG_1], dst_reg, 24, 24, 31);
/* Move result back to dst_reg */
PPC_MR(dst_reg, b2p[TMP_REG_1]);
break;
case 32:
/*
* Rotate word left by 8 bits:
* 2 bytes are already in their final position
* -- byte 2 and 4 (of bytes 1, 2, 3 and 4)
*/
PPC_RLWINM(b2p[TMP_REG_1], dst_reg, 8, 0, 31);
/* Rotate 24 bits and insert byte 1 */
PPC_RLWIMI(b2p[TMP_REG_1], dst_reg, 24, 0, 7);
/* Rotate 24 bits and insert byte 3 */
PPC_RLWIMI(b2p[TMP_REG_1], dst_reg, 24, 16, 23);
PPC_MR(dst_reg, b2p[TMP_REG_1]);
break;
case 64:
/*
* Way easier and faster(?) to store the value
* into stack and then use ldbrx
*
* ctx->seen will be reliable in pass2, but
* the instructions generated will remain the
* same across all passes
*/
powerpc/bpf: Introduce accessors for using the tmp local stack space While at it, ensure that the location of the local save area is consistent whether or not we setup our own stackframe. This property is utilised in the next patch that adds support for tail calls. Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-09-23 20:35:00 +00:00
PPC_STD(dst_reg, 1, bpf_jit_stack_local(ctx));
PPC_ADDI(b2p[TMP_REG_1], 1, bpf_jit_stack_local(ctx));
powerpc/ebpf/jit: Implement JIT compiler for extended BPF PPC64 eBPF JIT compiler. Enable with: echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable or echo 2 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable ... to see the generated JIT code. This can further be processed with tools/net/bpf_jit_disasm. With CONFIG_TEST_BPF=m and 'modprobe test_bpf': test_bpf: Summary: 305 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [297/297 JIT'ed] ... on both ppc64 BE and LE. The details of the approach are documented through various comments in the code. Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-06-22 16:25:07 +00:00
PPC_LDBRX(dst_reg, 0, b2p[TMP_REG_1]);
break;
}
break;
emit_clear:
switch (imm) {
case 16:
/* zero-extend 16 bits into 64 bits */
PPC_RLDICL(dst_reg, dst_reg, 0, 48);
break;
case 32:
/* zero-extend 32 bits into 64 bits */
PPC_RLDICL(dst_reg, dst_reg, 0, 32);
break;
case 64:
/* nop */
break;
}
break;
/*
* BPF_ST(X)
*/
case BPF_STX | BPF_MEM | BPF_B: /* *(u8 *)(dst + off) = src */
case BPF_ST | BPF_MEM | BPF_B: /* *(u8 *)(dst + off) = imm */
if (BPF_CLASS(code) == BPF_ST) {
PPC_LI(b2p[TMP_REG_1], imm);
src_reg = b2p[TMP_REG_1];
}
PPC_STB(src_reg, dst_reg, off);
break;
case BPF_STX | BPF_MEM | BPF_H: /* (u16 *)(dst + off) = src */
case BPF_ST | BPF_MEM | BPF_H: /* (u16 *)(dst + off) = imm */
if (BPF_CLASS(code) == BPF_ST) {
PPC_LI(b2p[TMP_REG_1], imm);
src_reg = b2p[TMP_REG_1];
}
PPC_STH(src_reg, dst_reg, off);
break;
case BPF_STX | BPF_MEM | BPF_W: /* *(u32 *)(dst + off) = src */
case BPF_ST | BPF_MEM | BPF_W: /* *(u32 *)(dst + off) = imm */
if (BPF_CLASS(code) == BPF_ST) {
PPC_LI32(b2p[TMP_REG_1], imm);
src_reg = b2p[TMP_REG_1];
}
PPC_STW(src_reg, dst_reg, off);
break;
case BPF_STX | BPF_MEM | BPF_DW: /* (u64 *)(dst + off) = src */
case BPF_ST | BPF_MEM | BPF_DW: /* *(u64 *)(dst + off) = imm */
if (BPF_CLASS(code) == BPF_ST) {
PPC_LI32(b2p[TMP_REG_1], imm);
src_reg = b2p[TMP_REG_1];
}
PPC_STD(src_reg, dst_reg, off);
break;
/*
* BPF_STX XADD (atomic_add)
*/
/* *(u32 *)(dst + off) += src */
case BPF_STX | BPF_XADD | BPF_W:
/* Get EA into TMP_REG_1 */
PPC_ADDI(b2p[TMP_REG_1], dst_reg, off);
/* error if EA is not word-aligned */
PPC_ANDI(b2p[TMP_REG_2], b2p[TMP_REG_1], 0x03);
PPC_BCC_SHORT(COND_EQ, (ctx->idx * 4) + 12);
PPC_LI(b2p[BPF_REG_0], 0);
PPC_JMP(exit_addr);
/* load value from memory into TMP_REG_2 */
PPC_BPF_LWARX(b2p[TMP_REG_2], 0, b2p[TMP_REG_1], 0);
/* add value from src_reg into this */
PPC_ADD(b2p[TMP_REG_2], b2p[TMP_REG_2], src_reg);
/* store result back */
PPC_BPF_STWCX(b2p[TMP_REG_2], 0, b2p[TMP_REG_1]);
/* we're done if this succeeded */
PPC_BCC_SHORT(COND_EQ, (ctx->idx * 4) + (7*4));
/* otherwise, let's try once more */
PPC_BPF_LWARX(b2p[TMP_REG_2], 0, b2p[TMP_REG_1], 0);
PPC_ADD(b2p[TMP_REG_2], b2p[TMP_REG_2], src_reg);
PPC_BPF_STWCX(b2p[TMP_REG_2], 0, b2p[TMP_REG_1]);
/* exit if the store was not successful */
PPC_LI(b2p[BPF_REG_0], 0);
PPC_BCC(COND_NE, exit_addr);
break;
/* *(u64 *)(dst + off) += src */
case BPF_STX | BPF_XADD | BPF_DW:
PPC_ADDI(b2p[TMP_REG_1], dst_reg, off);
/* error if EA is not doubleword-aligned */
PPC_ANDI(b2p[TMP_REG_2], b2p[TMP_REG_1], 0x07);
PPC_BCC_SHORT(COND_EQ, (ctx->idx * 4) + (3*4));
PPC_LI(b2p[BPF_REG_0], 0);
PPC_JMP(exit_addr);
PPC_BPF_LDARX(b2p[TMP_REG_2], 0, b2p[TMP_REG_1], 0);
PPC_ADD(b2p[TMP_REG_2], b2p[TMP_REG_2], src_reg);
PPC_BPF_STDCX(b2p[TMP_REG_2], 0, b2p[TMP_REG_1]);
PPC_BCC_SHORT(COND_EQ, (ctx->idx * 4) + (7*4));
PPC_BPF_LDARX(b2p[TMP_REG_2], 0, b2p[TMP_REG_1], 0);
PPC_ADD(b2p[TMP_REG_2], b2p[TMP_REG_2], src_reg);
PPC_BPF_STDCX(b2p[TMP_REG_2], 0, b2p[TMP_REG_1]);
PPC_LI(b2p[BPF_REG_0], 0);
PPC_BCC(COND_NE, exit_addr);
break;
/*
* BPF_LDX
*/
/* dst = *(u8 *)(ul) (src + off) */
case BPF_LDX | BPF_MEM | BPF_B:
PPC_LBZ(dst_reg, src_reg, off);
break;
/* dst = *(u16 *)(ul) (src + off) */
case BPF_LDX | BPF_MEM | BPF_H:
PPC_LHZ(dst_reg, src_reg, off);
break;
/* dst = *(u32 *)(ul) (src + off) */
case BPF_LDX | BPF_MEM | BPF_W:
PPC_LWZ(dst_reg, src_reg, off);
break;
/* dst = *(u64 *)(ul) (src + off) */
case BPF_LDX | BPF_MEM | BPF_DW:
PPC_LD(dst_reg, src_reg, off);
break;
/*
* Doubleword load
* 16 byte instruction that uses two 'struct bpf_insn'
*/
case BPF_LD | BPF_IMM | BPF_DW: /* dst = (u64) imm */
imm64 = ((u64)(u32) insn[i].imm) |
(((u64)(u32) insn[i+1].imm) << 32);
/* Adjust for two bpf instructions */
addrs[++i] = ctx->idx * 4;
PPC_LI64(dst_reg, imm64);
break;
/*
* Return/Exit
*/
case BPF_JMP | BPF_EXIT:
/*
* If this isn't the very last instruction, branch to
* the epilogue. If we _are_ the last instruction,
* we'll just fall through to the epilogue.
*/
if (i != flen - 1)
PPC_JMP(exit_addr);
/* else fall through to the epilogue */
break;
/*
* Call kernel helper
*/
case BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL:
ctx->seen |= SEEN_FUNC;
func = (u8 *) __bpf_call_base + imm;
/* Save skb pointer if we need to re-cache skb data */
if (bpf_helper_changes_skb_data(func))
powerpc/bpf: Introduce accessors for using the tmp local stack space While at it, ensure that the location of the local save area is consistent whether or not we setup our own stackframe. This property is utilised in the next patch that adds support for tail calls. Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-09-23 20:35:00 +00:00
PPC_BPF_STL(3, 1, bpf_jit_stack_local(ctx));
powerpc/ebpf/jit: Implement JIT compiler for extended BPF PPC64 eBPF JIT compiler. Enable with: echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable or echo 2 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable ... to see the generated JIT code. This can further be processed with tools/net/bpf_jit_disasm. With CONFIG_TEST_BPF=m and 'modprobe test_bpf': test_bpf: Summary: 305 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [297/297 JIT'ed] ... on both ppc64 BE and LE. The details of the approach are documented through various comments in the code. Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-06-22 16:25:07 +00:00
bpf_jit_emit_func_call(image, ctx, (u64)func);
/* move return value from r3 to BPF_REG_0 */
PPC_MR(b2p[BPF_REG_0], 3);
/* refresh skb cache */
if (bpf_helper_changes_skb_data(func)) {
/* reload skb pointer to r3 */
powerpc/bpf: Introduce accessors for using the tmp local stack space While at it, ensure that the location of the local save area is consistent whether or not we setup our own stackframe. This property is utilised in the next patch that adds support for tail calls. Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-09-23 20:35:00 +00:00
PPC_BPF_LL(3, 1, bpf_jit_stack_local(ctx));
powerpc/ebpf/jit: Implement JIT compiler for extended BPF PPC64 eBPF JIT compiler. Enable with: echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable or echo 2 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable ... to see the generated JIT code. This can further be processed with tools/net/bpf_jit_disasm. With CONFIG_TEST_BPF=m and 'modprobe test_bpf': test_bpf: Summary: 305 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [297/297 JIT'ed] ... on both ppc64 BE and LE. The details of the approach are documented through various comments in the code. Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-06-22 16:25:07 +00:00
bpf_jit_emit_skb_loads(image, ctx);
}
break;
/*
* Jumps and branches
*/
case BPF_JMP | BPF_JA:
PPC_JMP(addrs[i + 1 + off]);
break;
case BPF_JMP | BPF_JGT | BPF_K:
case BPF_JMP | BPF_JGT | BPF_X:
case BPF_JMP | BPF_JSGT | BPF_K:
case BPF_JMP | BPF_JSGT | BPF_X:
true_cond = COND_GT;
goto cond_branch;
case BPF_JMP | BPF_JGE | BPF_K:
case BPF_JMP | BPF_JGE | BPF_X:
case BPF_JMP | BPF_JSGE | BPF_K:
case BPF_JMP | BPF_JSGE | BPF_X:
true_cond = COND_GE;
goto cond_branch;
case BPF_JMP | BPF_JEQ | BPF_K:
case BPF_JMP | BPF_JEQ | BPF_X:
true_cond = COND_EQ;
goto cond_branch;
case BPF_JMP | BPF_JNE | BPF_K:
case BPF_JMP | BPF_JNE | BPF_X:
true_cond = COND_NE;
goto cond_branch;
case BPF_JMP | BPF_JSET | BPF_K:
case BPF_JMP | BPF_JSET | BPF_X:
true_cond = COND_NE;
/* Fall through */
cond_branch:
switch (code) {
case BPF_JMP | BPF_JGT | BPF_X:
case BPF_JMP | BPF_JGE | BPF_X:
case BPF_JMP | BPF_JEQ | BPF_X:
case BPF_JMP | BPF_JNE | BPF_X:
/* unsigned comparison */
PPC_CMPLD(dst_reg, src_reg);
break;
case BPF_JMP | BPF_JSGT | BPF_X:
case BPF_JMP | BPF_JSGE | BPF_X:
/* signed comparison */
PPC_CMPD(dst_reg, src_reg);
break;
case BPF_JMP | BPF_JSET | BPF_X:
PPC_AND_DOT(b2p[TMP_REG_1], dst_reg, src_reg);
break;
case BPF_JMP | BPF_JNE | BPF_K:
case BPF_JMP | BPF_JEQ | BPF_K:
case BPF_JMP | BPF_JGT | BPF_K:
case BPF_JMP | BPF_JGE | BPF_K:
/*
* Need sign-extended load, so only positive
* values can be used as imm in cmpldi
*/
if (imm >= 0 && imm < 32768)
PPC_CMPLDI(dst_reg, imm);
else {
/* sign-extending load */
PPC_LI32(b2p[TMP_REG_1], imm);
/* ... but unsigned comparison */
PPC_CMPLD(dst_reg, b2p[TMP_REG_1]);
}
break;
case BPF_JMP | BPF_JSGT | BPF_K:
case BPF_JMP | BPF_JSGE | BPF_K:
/*
* signed comparison, so any 16-bit value
* can be used in cmpdi
*/
if (imm >= -32768 && imm < 32768)
PPC_CMPDI(dst_reg, imm);
else {
PPC_LI32(b2p[TMP_REG_1], imm);
PPC_CMPD(dst_reg, b2p[TMP_REG_1]);
}
break;
case BPF_JMP | BPF_JSET | BPF_K:
/* andi does not sign-extend the immediate */
if (imm >= 0 && imm < 32768)
/* PPC_ANDI is _only/always_ dot-form */
PPC_ANDI(b2p[TMP_REG_1], dst_reg, imm);
else {
PPC_LI32(b2p[TMP_REG_1], imm);
PPC_AND_DOT(b2p[TMP_REG_1], dst_reg,
b2p[TMP_REG_1]);
}
break;
}
PPC_BCC(true_cond, addrs[i + 1 + off]);
break;
/*
* Loads from packet header/data
* Assume 32-bit input value in imm and X (src_reg)
*/
/* Absolute loads */
case BPF_LD | BPF_W | BPF_ABS:
func = (u8 *)CHOOSE_LOAD_FUNC(imm, sk_load_word);
goto common_load_abs;
case BPF_LD | BPF_H | BPF_ABS:
func = (u8 *)CHOOSE_LOAD_FUNC(imm, sk_load_half);
goto common_load_abs;
case BPF_LD | BPF_B | BPF_ABS:
func = (u8 *)CHOOSE_LOAD_FUNC(imm, sk_load_byte);
common_load_abs:
/*
* Load from [imm]
* Load into r4, which can just be passed onto
* skb load helpers as the second parameter
*/
PPC_LI32(4, imm);
goto common_load;
/* Indirect loads */
case BPF_LD | BPF_W | BPF_IND:
func = (u8 *)sk_load_word;
goto common_load_ind;
case BPF_LD | BPF_H | BPF_IND:
func = (u8 *)sk_load_half;
goto common_load_ind;
case BPF_LD | BPF_B | BPF_IND:
func = (u8 *)sk_load_byte;
common_load_ind:
/*
* Load from [src_reg + imm]
* Treat src_reg as a 32-bit value
*/
PPC_EXTSW(4, src_reg);
if (imm) {
if (imm >= -32768 && imm < 32768)
PPC_ADDI(4, 4, IMM_L(imm));
else {
PPC_LI32(b2p[TMP_REG_1], imm);
PPC_ADD(4, 4, b2p[TMP_REG_1]);
}
}
common_load:
ctx->seen |= SEEN_SKB;
ctx->seen |= SEEN_FUNC;
bpf_jit_emit_func_call(image, ctx, (u64)func);
/*
* Helper returns 'lt' condition on error, and an
* appropriate return value in BPF_REG_0
*/
PPC_BCC(COND_LT, exit_addr);
break;
/*
powerpc/bpf: Implement support for tail calls Tail calls allow JIT'ed eBPF programs to call into other JIT'ed eBPF programs. This can be achieved either by: (1) retaining the stack setup by the first eBPF program and having all subsequent eBPF programs re-using it, or, (2) by unwinding/tearing down the stack and having each eBPF program deal with its own stack as it sees fit. To ensure that this does not create loops, there is a limit to how many tail calls can be done (currently 32). This requires the JIT'ed code to maintain a count of the number of tail calls done so far. Approach (1) is simple, but requires every eBPF program to have (almost) the same prologue/epilogue, regardless of whether they need it. This is inefficient for small eBPF programs which may not sometimes need a prologue at all. As such, to minimize impact of tail call implementation, we use approach (2) here which needs each eBPF program in the chain to use its own prologue/epilogue. This is not ideal when many tail calls are involved and when all the eBPF programs in the chain have similar prologue/epilogue. However, the impact is restricted to programs that do tail calls. Individual eBPF programs are not affected. We maintain the tail call count in a fixed location on the stack and updated tail call count values are passed in through this. The very first eBPF program in a chain sets this up to 0 (the first 2 instructions). Subsequent tail calls skip the first two eBPF JIT instructions to maintain the count. For programs that don't do tail calls themselves, the first two instructions are NOPs. Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-09-23 20:35:01 +00:00
* Tail call
powerpc/ebpf/jit: Implement JIT compiler for extended BPF PPC64 eBPF JIT compiler. Enable with: echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable or echo 2 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable ... to see the generated JIT code. This can further be processed with tools/net/bpf_jit_disasm. With CONFIG_TEST_BPF=m and 'modprobe test_bpf': test_bpf: Summary: 305 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [297/297 JIT'ed] ... on both ppc64 BE and LE. The details of the approach are documented through various comments in the code. Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-06-22 16:25:07 +00:00
*/
case BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL | BPF_X:
powerpc/bpf: Implement support for tail calls Tail calls allow JIT'ed eBPF programs to call into other JIT'ed eBPF programs. This can be achieved either by: (1) retaining the stack setup by the first eBPF program and having all subsequent eBPF programs re-using it, or, (2) by unwinding/tearing down the stack and having each eBPF program deal with its own stack as it sees fit. To ensure that this does not create loops, there is a limit to how many tail calls can be done (currently 32). This requires the JIT'ed code to maintain a count of the number of tail calls done so far. Approach (1) is simple, but requires every eBPF program to have (almost) the same prologue/epilogue, regardless of whether they need it. This is inefficient for small eBPF programs which may not sometimes need a prologue at all. As such, to minimize impact of tail call implementation, we use approach (2) here which needs each eBPF program in the chain to use its own prologue/epilogue. This is not ideal when many tail calls are involved and when all the eBPF programs in the chain have similar prologue/epilogue. However, the impact is restricted to programs that do tail calls. Individual eBPF programs are not affected. We maintain the tail call count in a fixed location on the stack and updated tail call count values are passed in through this. The very first eBPF program in a chain sets this up to 0 (the first 2 instructions). Subsequent tail calls skip the first two eBPF JIT instructions to maintain the count. For programs that don't do tail calls themselves, the first two instructions are NOPs. Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-09-23 20:35:01 +00:00
ctx->seen |= SEEN_TAILCALL;
bpf_jit_emit_tail_call(image, ctx, addrs[i + 1]);
break;
powerpc/ebpf/jit: Implement JIT compiler for extended BPF PPC64 eBPF JIT compiler. Enable with: echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable or echo 2 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable ... to see the generated JIT code. This can further be processed with tools/net/bpf_jit_disasm. With CONFIG_TEST_BPF=m and 'modprobe test_bpf': test_bpf: Summary: 305 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [297/297 JIT'ed] ... on both ppc64 BE and LE. The details of the approach are documented through various comments in the code. Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
2016-06-22 16:25:07 +00:00
default:
/*
* The filter contains something cruel & unusual.
* We don't handle it, but also there shouldn't be
* anything missing from our list.
*/
pr_err_ratelimited("eBPF filter opcode %04x (@%d) unsupported\n",
code, i);
return -ENOTSUPP;
}
}
/* Set end-of-body-code address for exit. */
addrs[i] = ctx->idx * 4;
return 0;
}
void bpf_jit_compile(struct bpf_prog *fp) { }
struct bpf_prog *bpf_int_jit_compile(struct bpf_prog *fp)
{
u32 proglen;
u32 alloclen;
u8 *image = NULL;
u32 *code_base;
u32 *addrs;
struct codegen_context cgctx;
int pass;
int flen;
struct bpf_binary_header *bpf_hdr;
if (!bpf_jit_enable)
return fp;
flen = fp->len;
addrs = kzalloc((flen+1) * sizeof(*addrs), GFP_KERNEL);
if (addrs == NULL)
return fp;
cgctx.idx = 0;
cgctx.seen = 0;
/* Scouting faux-generate pass 0 */
if (bpf_jit_build_body(fp, 0, &cgctx, addrs))
/* We hit something illegal or unsupported. */
goto out;
/*
* Pretend to build prologue, given the features we've seen. This will
* update ctgtx.idx as it pretends to output instructions, then we can
* calculate total size from idx.
*/
bpf_jit_build_prologue(0, &cgctx);
bpf_jit_build_epilogue(0, &cgctx);
proglen = cgctx.idx * 4;
alloclen = proglen + FUNCTION_DESCR_SIZE;
bpf_hdr = bpf_jit_binary_alloc(alloclen, &image, 4,
bpf_jit_fill_ill_insns);
if (!bpf_hdr)
goto out;
code_base = (u32 *)(image + FUNCTION_DESCR_SIZE);
/* Code generation passes 1-2 */
for (pass = 1; pass < 3; pass++) {
/* Now build the prologue, body code & epilogue for real. */
cgctx.idx = 0;
bpf_jit_build_prologue(code_base, &cgctx);
bpf_jit_build_body(fp, code_base, &cgctx, addrs);
bpf_jit_build_epilogue(code_base, &cgctx);
if (bpf_jit_enable > 1)
pr_info("Pass %d: shrink = %d, seen = 0x%x\n", pass,
proglen - (cgctx.idx * 4), cgctx.seen);
}
if (bpf_jit_enable > 1)
/*
* Note that we output the base address of the code_base
* rather than image, since opcodes are in code_base.
*/
bpf_jit_dump(flen, proglen, pass, code_base);
if (image) {
bpf_flush_icache(bpf_hdr, image + alloclen);
#ifdef PPC64_ELF_ABI_v1
/* Function descriptor nastiness: Address + TOC */
((u64 *)image)[0] = (u64)code_base;
((u64 *)image)[1] = local_paca->kernel_toc;
#endif
fp->bpf_func = (void *)image;
fp->jited = 1;
}
out:
kfree(addrs);
return fp;
}
void bpf_jit_free(struct bpf_prog *fp)
{
unsigned long addr = (unsigned long)fp->bpf_func & PAGE_MASK;
struct bpf_binary_header *bpf_hdr = (void *)addr;
if (fp->jited)
bpf_jit_binary_free(bpf_hdr);
bpf_prog_unlock_free(fp);
}
Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink