On 11/27/20 9:57 AM, Brendan Jackman wrote:
This value can be set in bpf_insn.imm, for BPF_ATOMIC instructions,
in order to have the previous value of the atomically-modified memory
location loaded into the src register after an atomic op is carried
out.

Suggested-by: Yonghong Song <y...@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Brendan Jackman <jackm...@google.com>
---
  arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c    |  4 ++++
  include/linux/filter.h         |  9 +++++++++
  include/uapi/linux/bpf.h       |  3 +++
  kernel/bpf/core.c              | 13 +++++++++++++
  kernel/bpf/disasm.c            |  7 +++++++
  kernel/bpf/verifier.c          | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
  tools/include/linux/filter.h   | 10 ++++++++++
  tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h |  3 +++
  8 files changed, 74 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
index 7c47ad70ddb4..d3cd45bcd0c1 100644
--- a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
+++ b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
@@ -827,6 +827,10 @@ static int emit_atomic(u8 **pprog, u8 atomic_op,
                /* lock *(u32/u64*)(dst_reg + off) <op>= src_reg */
                EMIT1(simple_alu_opcodes[atomic_op]);
                break;
+       case BPF_ADD | BPF_FETCH:
+               /* src_reg = atomic_fetch_add(*(dst_reg + off), src_reg); */
+               EMIT2(0x0F, 0xC1);
+               break;
        default:
                pr_err("bpf_jit: unknown atomic opcode %02x\n", atomic_op);
                return -EFAULT;
diff --git a/include/linux/filter.h b/include/linux/filter.h
index ce19988fb312..4e04d0fc454f 100644
--- a/include/linux/filter.h
+++ b/include/linux/filter.h
@@ -270,6 +270,15 @@ static inline bool insn_is_zext(const struct bpf_insn 
*insn)
                .imm   = BPF_ADD })
  #define BPF_STX_XADD BPF_ATOMIC_ADD /* alias */
+/* Atomic memory add with fetch, src_reg = atomic_fetch_add(*(dst_reg + off), src_reg); */
+
+#define BPF_ATOMIC_FETCH_ADD(SIZE, DST, SRC, OFF)              \
+       ((struct bpf_insn) {                                    \
+               .code  = BPF_STX | BPF_SIZE(SIZE) | BPF_ATOMIC, \
+               .dst_reg = DST,                                 \
+               .src_reg = SRC,                                 \
+               .off   = OFF,                                   \
+               .imm   = BPF_ADD | BPF_FETCH })
/* Memory store, *(uint *) (dst_reg + off16) = imm32 */ diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
index d0adc48db43c..025e377e7229 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
@@ -44,6 +44,9 @@
  #define BPF_CALL      0x80    /* function call */
  #define BPF_EXIT      0x90    /* function return */
+/* atomic op type fields (stored in immediate) */
+#define BPF_FETCH      0x01    /* fetch previous value into src reg */
+
  /* Register numbers */
  enum {
        BPF_REG_0 = 0,
[...]
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index e8b41ccdfb90..cd4c03b25573 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -3602,7 +3602,11 @@ static int check_atomic(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, 
int insn_idx, struct bpf_i
  {
        int err;
- if (insn->imm != BPF_ADD) {
+       switch (insn->imm) {
+       case BPF_ADD:
+       case BPF_ADD | BPF_FETCH:
+               break;
+       default:
                verbose(env, "BPF_ATOMIC uses invalid atomic opcode %02x\n", 
insn->imm);
                return -EINVAL;
        }
@@ -3631,7 +3635,7 @@ static int check_atomic(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int 
insn_idx, struct bpf_i
            is_pkt_reg(env, insn->dst_reg) ||
            is_flow_key_reg(env, insn->dst_reg) ||
            is_sk_reg(env, insn->dst_reg)) {
-               verbose(env, "atomic stores into R%d %s is not allowed\n",
+               verbose(env, "BPF_ATOMIC stores into R%d %s is not allowed\n",
                        insn->dst_reg,
                        reg_type_str[reg_state(env, insn->dst_reg)->type]);
                return -EACCES;
@@ -3644,8 +3648,20 @@ static int check_atomic(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, 
int insn_idx, struct bpf_i
                return err;
/* check whether we can write into the same memory */
-       return check_mem_access(env, insn_idx, insn->dst_reg, insn->off,
-                               BPF_SIZE(insn->code), BPF_WRITE, -1, true);
+       err = check_mem_access(env, insn_idx, insn->dst_reg, insn->off,
+                              BPF_SIZE(insn->code), BPF_WRITE, -1, true);
+       if (err)
+               return err;
+
+       if (!(insn->imm & BPF_FETCH))
+               return 0;
+
+       /* check and record load of old value into src reg  */
+       err = check_reg_arg(env, insn->src_reg, DST_OP);
+       if (err)
+               return err;
+
+       return 0;
  }
static int __check_stack_boundary(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 regno,
@@ -9501,12 +9517,6 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
                } else if (class == BPF_STX) {
                        enum bpf_reg_type *prev_dst_type, dst_reg_type;
- if (((BPF_MODE(insn->code) != BPF_MEM &&
-                             BPF_MODE(insn->code) != BPF_ATOMIC) || insn->imm 
!= 0)) {
-                               verbose(env, "BPF_STX uses reserved fields\n");
-                               return -EINVAL;
-                       }
-
                        if (BPF_MODE(insn->code) == BPF_ATOMIC) {
                                err = check_atomic(env, env->insn_idx, insn);
                                if (err)
@@ -9515,6 +9525,11 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
                                continue;
                        }
+ if (BPF_MODE(insn->code) != BPF_MEM && insn->imm != 0) {

"||" here instead of "&&"?

+                               verbose(env, "BPF_STX uses reserved fields\n");
+                               return -EINVAL;
+                       }
+
                        /* check src1 operand */
                        err = check_reg_arg(env, insn->src_reg, SRC_OP);
                        if (err)
diff --git a/tools/include/linux/filter.h b/tools/include/linux/filter.h
[...]

Reply via email to