On 12/7/20 8:07 AM, Brendan Jackman wrote:
This adds two atomic opcodes, both of which include the BPF_FETCH
flag. XCHG without the BPF_FETCH flag would naturally encode
atomic_set. This is not supported because it would be of limited
value to userspace (it doesn't imply any barriers). CMPXCHG without
BPF_FETCH woulud be an atomic compare-and-write. We don't have such
an operation in the kernel so it isn't provided to BPF either.

There are two significant design decisions made for the CMPXCHG
instruction:

  - To solve the issue that this 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 R0. x86 has similar design (and A64 doesn't
    have this problem).

    A potential alternative might be to encode the other operand's
    register number in the immediate field.

  - The kernel's atomic_cmpxchg returns the old value, while the C11
    userspace APIs return a boolean indicating the comparison
    result. Which should BPF do? A64 returns the old value. x86 returns
    the old value in the hard-coded register (and also sets a
    flag). That means return-old-value is easier to JIT.

Signed-off-by: Brendan Jackman <jackm...@google.com>
---
  arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c    |  8 ++++++++
  include/linux/filter.h         | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
  include/uapi/linux/bpf.h       |  4 +++-
  kernel/bpf/core.c              | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
  kernel/bpf/disasm.c            | 15 +++++++++++++++
  kernel/bpf/verifier.c          | 19 +++++++++++++++++--
  tools/include/linux/filter.h   | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
  tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h |  4 +++-
  8 files changed, 110 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
index eea7d8b0bb12..308241187582 100644
--- a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
+++ b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
@@ -815,6 +815,14 @@ static int emit_atomic(u8 **pprog, u8 atomic_op,
                /* src_reg = atomic_fetch_add(dst_reg + off, src_reg); */
                EMIT2(0x0F, 0xC1);
                break;
+       case BPF_XCHG:
+               /* src_reg = atomic_xchg(dst_reg + off, src_reg); */
+               EMIT1(0x87);
+               break;
+       case BPF_CMPXCHG:
+               /* r0 = atomic_cmpxchg(dst_reg + off, r0, src_reg); */
+               EMIT2(0x0F, 0xB1);
+               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 b5258bca10d2..e1e1fc946a7c 100644
--- a/include/linux/filter.h
+++ b/include/linux/filter.h
@@ -265,6 +265,8 @@ static inline bool insn_is_zext(const struct bpf_insn *insn)
   *
   *   BPF_ADD                  *(uint *) (dst_reg + off16) += src_reg
   *   BPF_ADD | BPF_FETCH      src_reg = atomic_fetch_add(dst_reg + off16, 
src_reg);
+ *   BPF_XCHG                 src_reg = atomic_xchg(dst_reg + off16, src_reg)
+ *   BPF_CMPXCHG              r0 = atomic_cmpxchg(dst_reg + off16, r0, src_reg)
   */
#define BPF_ATOMIC64(OP, DST, SRC, OFF) \
@@ -293,6 +295,26 @@ static inline bool insn_is_zext(const struct bpf_insn 
*insn)
                .off   = OFF,                                   \
                .imm   = BPF_ADD })
+/* Atomic exchange, src_reg = atomic_xchg(dst_reg + off, src_reg) */
+
+#define BPF_ATOMIC_XCHG(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_XCHG  })
+
+/* Atomic compare-exchange, r0 = atomic_cmpxchg(dst_reg + off, r0, src_reg) */
+
+#define BPF_ATOMIC_CMPXCHG(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_CMPXCHG })

Define BPF_ATOMIC_{XCHG, CMPXCHG} based on BPF_ATOMIC macro?

+
  /* Memory store, *(uint *) (dst_reg + off16) = imm32 */
#define BPF_ST_MEM(SIZE, DST, OFF, IMM) \
diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
index d5389119291e..b733af50a5b9 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
@@ -45,7 +45,9 @@
  #define BPF_EXIT      0x90    /* function return */
/* atomic op type fields (stored in immediate) */
-#define BPF_FETCH      0x01    /* fetch previous value into src reg */
+#define BPF_XCHG       (0xe0 | BPF_FETCH)      /* atomic exchange */
+#define BPF_CMPXCHG    (0xf0 | BPF_FETCH)      /* atomic compare-and-write */
+#define BPF_FETCH      0x01    /* not an opcode on its own, used to build 
others */
/* Register numbers */
  enum {
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c
index 61e93eb7d363..28f960bc2e30 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/core.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c
@@ -1630,6 +1630,16 @@ static u64 ___bpf_prog_run(u64 *regs, const struct 
bpf_insn *insn, u64 *stack)
                                (u32) SRC,
                                (atomic_t *)(unsigned long) (DST + insn->off));
                        break;
+               case BPF_XCHG:
+                       SRC = (u32) atomic_xchg(
+                               (atomic_t *)(unsigned long) (DST + insn->off),
+                               (u32) SRC);
+                       break;
+               case BPF_CMPXCHG:
+                       BPF_R0 = (u32) atomic_cmpxchg(
+                               (atomic_t *)(unsigned long) (DST + insn->off),
+                               (u32) BPF_R0, (u32) SRC);
+                       break;
                default:
                        goto default_label;
                }
[...]

Reply via email to