[PATCH 6/9] powerpc/bpf: Fix BPF_SUB when imm == 0x80000000

[Christophe Leroy]

Le 01/10/2021 à 23:14, Naveen N. Rao a écrit :
> We aren't handling subtraction involving an immediate value of
> 0x80000000 properly. Fix the same.
> 
> Fixes: 156d0e290e969c ("powerpc/ebpf/jit: Implement JIT compiler for extended BPF")
> Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
>   arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c | 16 ++++++++--------
>   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> index ffb7a2877a8469..4641a50e82d50d 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> @@ -333,15 +333,15 @@ int bpf_jit_build_body(struct bpf_prog *fp, u32 *image, struct codegen_context *
>   		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)
> -					EMIT(PPC_RAW_ADDI(dst_reg, dst_reg, IMM_L(imm)));
> -				else {
> -					PPC_LI32(b2p[TMP_REG_1], imm);
> +			if (imm > -32768 && imm < 32768) {
> +				EMIT(PPC_RAW_ADDI(dst_reg, dst_reg,
> +					BPF_OP(code) == BPF_SUB ? IMM_L(-imm) : IMM_L(imm)));
> +			} else {
> +				PPC_LI32(b2p[TMP_REG_1], imm);
> +				if (BPF_OP(code) == BPF_SUB)
> +					EMIT(PPC_RAW_SUB(dst_reg, dst_reg, b2p[TMP_REG_1]));
> +				else
>   					EMIT(PPC_RAW_ADD(dst_reg, dst_reg, b2p[TMP_REG_1]));
> -				}
>   			}
>   			goto bpf_alu32_trunc;

There is now so few code common to both BPF_ADD and BPF_SUB that you 
should make them different cases.

While at it, why not also use ADDIS if imm is 32 bits ? That would be an 
ADDIS/ADDI instead of LIS/ORI/ADD

>   		case BPF_ALU | BPF_MUL | BPF_X: /* (u32) dst *= (u32) src */
>