[PATCH v2 5/5] bpf ppc32: Add instructions for atomic_[cmp]xchg

[Naveen N. Rao]

Hari Bathini wrote:
> 
> 
> On 14/06/22 12:41 am, Hari Bathini wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 11/06/22 11:04 pm, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 10/06/2022 à 17:55, Hari Bathini a écrit :
>>>> This adds two atomic opcodes BPF_XCHG and BPF_CMPXCHG on ppc32, both
>>>> of which include the BPF_FETCH flag.  The kernel's atomic_cmpxchg
>>>> operation fundamentally has 3 operands, but we only have two register
>>>> fields. Therefore the operand we compare against (the kernel's API
>>>> calls it 'old') is hard-coded to be BPF_REG_R0. Also, kernel's
>>>> atomic_cmpxchg returns the previous value at dst_reg + off. JIT the
>>>> same for BPF too with return value put in BPF_REG_0.
>>>>
>>>>     BPF_REG_R0 = atomic_cmpxchg(dst_reg + off, BPF_REG_R0, src_reg);
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Hari Bathini <hbathini at linux.ibm.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> Changes in v2:
>>>> * Moved variable declaration to avoid late declaration error on
>>>>     some compilers.
>>>> * Tried to make code readable and compact.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>>>    1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c 
>>>> b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c
>>>> index 28dc6a1a8f2f..43f1c76d48ce 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c
>>>> @@ -297,6 +297,7 @@ int bpf_jit_build_body(struct bpf_prog *fp, u32 
>>>> *image, struct codegen_context *
>>>>            u32 ax_reg = bpf_to_ppc(BPF_REG_AX);
>>>>            u32 tmp_reg = bpf_to_ppc(TMP_REG);
>>>>            u32 size = BPF_SIZE(code);
>>>> +        u32 save_reg, ret_reg;
>>>>            s16 off = insn[i].off;
>>>>            s32 imm = insn[i].imm;
>>>>            bool func_addr_fixed;
>>>> @@ -799,6 +800,9 @@ int bpf_jit_build_body(struct bpf_prog *fp, u32 
>>>> *image, struct codegen_context *
>>>>             * BPF_STX ATOMIC (atomic ops)
>>>>             */
>>>>            case BPF_STX | BPF_ATOMIC | BPF_W:
>>>> +            save_reg = _R0;
>>>> +            ret_reg = src_reg;
>>>> +
>>>>                bpf_set_seen_register(ctx, tmp_reg);
>>>>                bpf_set_seen_register(ctx, ax_reg);
>>>> @@ -829,6 +833,21 @@ int bpf_jit_build_body(struct bpf_prog *fp, u32 
>>>> *image, struct codegen_context *
>>>>                case BPF_XOR | BPF_FETCH:
>>>>                    EMIT(PPC_RAW_XOR(_R0, _R0, src_reg));
>>>>                    break;
>>>> +            case BPF_CMPXCHG:
>>>> +                /*
>>>> +                 * Return old value in BPF_REG_0 for BPF_CMPXCHG &
>>>> +                 * in src_reg for other cases.
>>>> +                 */
>>>> +                ret_reg = bpf_to_ppc(BPF_REG_0);
>>>> +
>>>> +                /* Compare with old value in BPF_REG_0 */
>>>> +                EMIT(PPC_RAW_CMPW(bpf_to_ppc(BPF_REG_0), _R0));
>>>> +                /* Don't set if different from old value */
>>>> +                PPC_BCC_SHORT(COND_NE, (ctx->idx + 3) * 4);
>>>> +                fallthrough;
>>>> +            case BPF_XCHG:
>>>> +                save_reg = src_reg;
>>>
>>> I'm a bit lost, when save_reg is src_reg, don't we expect the upper part
>>> (ie src_reg - 1) to be explicitely zeroised ?
>>>
>> 
>> For BPF_FETCH variants, old value is returned in src_reg (ret_reg).
>> In all such cases, higher 32-bit is zero'ed. But in case of BPF_CMPXCHG,
>> src_reg is untouched as BPF_REG_0 is used instead. So, higher 32-bit
>> remains untouched for that case alone..
>> 
>> 
>>>> +                break;
>>>>                default:
>>>>                    pr_err_ratelimited("eBPF filter atomic op code 
>>>> %02x (@%d) unsupported\n",
>>>>                               code, i);
>>>> @@ -836,15 +855,15 @@ int bpf_jit_build_body(struct bpf_prog *fp, u32 
>>>> *image, struct codegen_context *
>>>>                }
>>>>                /* store new value */
>>>> -            EMIT(PPC_RAW_STWCX(_R0, tmp_reg, dst_reg));
>>>> +            EMIT(PPC_RAW_STWCX(save_reg, tmp_reg, dst_reg));
>>>>                /* we're done if this succeeded */
>>>>                PPC_BCC_SHORT(COND_NE, tmp_idx);
> 
>> 
>>>>                /* For the BPF_FETCH variant, get old data into 
>>>> src_reg */
>> 
>> With this commit, this comment is not true for BPF_CMPXCHG. So, this
>> comment should not be removed..
> 
> Sorry, the above should read:
>    "should be removed" instead of "should not be removed"..
> 

Or, just add BPF_REG_0 at the end:
  /* For the BPF_FETCH variant, get old data into src_reg/BPF_REG_0 */

The comment in CMPXCHG anyway details the difference. In any case, we 
can clean this up subsequently.


- Naveen