[PATCH 4/4] bpf powerpc: Add addr > TASK_SIZE_MAX explicit check
Ravi Bangoria
ravi.bangoria at linux.ibm.com
Wed Jul 7 14:06:33 AEST 2021
>> @@ -763,6 +771,14 @@ int bpf_jit_build_body(struct bpf_prog *fp, u32 *image, struct codegen_context *
>> /* dst = *(u16 *)(ul) (src + off) */
>> case BPF_LDX | BPF_MEM | BPF_H:
>> case BPF_LDX | BPF_PROBE_MEM | BPF_H:
>> + if (BPF_MODE(code) == BPF_PROBE_MEM) {
>> + EMIT(PPC_RAW_ADDI(b2p[TMP_REG_1], src_reg, off));
>> + PPC_LI64(b2p[TMP_REG_2], TASK_SIZE_MAX);
>> + EMIT(PPC_RAW_CMPLD(b2p[TMP_REG_1], b2p[TMP_REG_2]));
>> + PPC_BCC(COND_GT, (ctx->idx + 4) * 4);
>> + EMIT(PPC_RAW_XOR(dst_reg, dst_reg, dst_reg));
>> + PPC_JMP((ctx->idx + 2) * 4);
>> + }
>
> That code seems strictly identical to the previous one and the next one.
> Can you refactor in a function ?
I'll check this.
>
>> EMIT(PPC_RAW_LHZ(dst_reg, src_reg, off));
>> if (insn_is_zext(&insn[i + 1]))
>> addrs[++i] = ctx->idx * 4;
>> @@ -773,6 +789,14 @@ int bpf_jit_build_body(struct bpf_prog *fp, u32 *image, struct codegen_context *
>> /* dst = *(u32 *)(ul) (src + off) */
>> case BPF_LDX | BPF_MEM | BPF_W:
>> case BPF_LDX | BPF_PROBE_MEM | BPF_W:
>> + if (BPF_MODE(code) == BPF_PROBE_MEM) {
>> + EMIT(PPC_RAW_ADDI(b2p[TMP_REG_1], src_reg, off));
>> + PPC_LI64(b2p[TMP_REG_2], TASK_SIZE_MAX);
>> + EMIT(PPC_RAW_CMPLD(b2p[TMP_REG_1], b2p[TMP_REG_2]));
>> + PPC_BCC(COND_GT, (ctx->idx + 4) * 4);
>> + EMIT(PPC_RAW_XOR(dst_reg, dst_reg, dst_reg));
>> + PPC_JMP((ctx->idx + 2) * 4);
>> + }
>> EMIT(PPC_RAW_LWZ(dst_reg, src_reg, off));
>> if (insn_is_zext(&insn[i + 1]))
>> addrs[++i] = ctx->idx * 4;
>> @@ -783,6 +807,20 @@ int bpf_jit_build_body(struct bpf_prog *fp, u32 *image, struct codegen_context *
>> /* dst = *(u64 *)(ul) (src + off) */
>> case BPF_LDX | BPF_MEM | BPF_DW:
>> case BPF_LDX | BPF_PROBE_MEM | BPF_DW:
>> + if (BPF_MODE(code) == BPF_PROBE_MEM) {
>> + EMIT(PPC_RAW_ADDI(b2p[TMP_REG_1], src_reg, off));
>> + PPC_LI64(b2p[TMP_REG_2], TASK_SIZE_MAX);
>> + EMIT(PPC_RAW_CMPLD(b2p[TMP_REG_1], b2p[TMP_REG_2]));
>> + if (off % 4)
>
> That test is worth a comment.
(off % 4) test is based on how PPC_BPF_LL() emits instruction.
>
> And I'd prefer
>
> if (off & 3) {
> PPC_BCC(COND_GT, (ctx->idx + 5) * 4);
> EMIT(PPC_RAW_XOR(dst_reg, dst_reg, dst_reg));
> PPC_JMP((ctx->idx + 3) * 4);
> } else {
> PPC_BCC(COND_GT, (ctx->idx + 4) * 4);
> EMIT(PPC_RAW_XOR(dst_reg, dst_reg, dst_reg));
> PPC_JMP((ctx->idx + 2) * 4);
> }
Yes this is neat.
Thanks for the review,
Ravi
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list