On 05/18/2018 06:05 PM, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
> Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> On 05/18/2018 02:50 PM, Sandipan Das wrote:
>>> This adds support for bpf-to-bpf function calls in the powerpc64
>>> JIT compiler. The JIT compiler converts the bpf call instructions
>>> to native branch instructions. After a round of the usual passes,
>>> the start addresses of the JITed images for the callee functions
>>> are known. Finally, to fixup the branch target addresses, we need
>>> to perform an extra pass.
>>>
>>> Because of the address range in which JITed images are allocated
>>> on powerpc64, the offsets of the start addresses of these images
>>> from __bpf_call_base are as large as 64 bits. So, for a function
>>> call, we cannot use the imm field of the instruction to determine
>>> the callee's address. Instead, we use the alternative method of
>>> getting it from the list of function addresses in the auxillary
>>> data of the caller by using the off field as an index.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sandipan Das <sandi...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>> ---
>>> arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c | 79
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>>> 1 file changed, 69 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
>>> b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
>>> index 1bdb1aff0619..25939892d8f7 100644
>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
>>> @@ -256,7 +256,7 @@ static void bpf_jit_emit_tail_call(u32 *image, struct
>>> codegen_context *ctx, u32
>>> /* Assemble the body code between the prologue & epilogue */
>>> static int bpf_jit_build_body(struct bpf_prog *fp, u32 *image,
>>> struct codegen_context *ctx,
>>> - u32 *addrs)
>>> + u32 *addrs, bool extra_pass)
>>> {
>>> const struct bpf_insn *insn = fp->insnsi;
>>> int flen = fp->len;
>>> @@ -712,11 +712,23 @@ static int bpf_jit_build_body(struct bpf_prog *fp,
>>> u32 *image,
>>> break;
>>>
>>> /*
>>> - * Call kernel helper
>>> + * Call kernel helper or bpf function
>>> */
>>> case BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL:
>>> ctx->seen |= SEEN_FUNC;
>>> - func = (u8 *) __bpf_call_base + imm;
>>> +
>>> + /* bpf function call */
>>> + if (insn[i].src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_CALL && extra_pass)
>>
>> Perhaps it might make sense here for !extra_pass to set func to some dummy
>> address as otherwise the 'kernel helper call' branch used for this is a bit
>> misleading in that sense. The PPC_LI64() used in bpf_jit_emit_func_call()
>> optimizes the immediate addr, I presume the JIT can handle situations where
>> in the final extra_pass the image needs to grow/shrink again (due to
>> different
>> final address for the call)?
>
> That's a good catch. We don't handle that -- we expect to get the size right
> on first pass. We could probably have PPC_FUNC_ADDR() pad the result with
> nops to make it a constant 5-instruction sequence.
Yeah, arm64 does something similar by not optimizing the imm in order to always
emit 4 insns for it.
Thanks,
Daniel
