Le 12/05/2022 à 09:45, 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);
Ah, now we mix the xchg's with the bitwise operations. Ok I understand
better that goto atomic_ops in the previous patch then. But it now
becomes uneasy to read and follow.
I think it would be cleaner to separate completely the bitwise
operations and this, even if it duplicates half a dozen of lines.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hari Bathini <hbath...@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
> arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c
> b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c
> index 5604ae1b60ab..4690fd6e9e52 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c
> @@ -829,6 +829,23 @@ int bpf_jit_build_body(struct bpf_prog *fp, u32 *image,
> struct codegen_context *
> /* we're done if this succeeded */
> PPC_BCC_SHORT(COND_NE, tmp_idx);
> break;
> + case BPF_CMPXCHG:
> + /* 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:
> + /* store new value */
> + EMIT(PPC_RAW_STWCX(src_reg, tmp_reg, dst_reg));
> + PPC_BCC_SHORT(COND_NE, tmp_idx);
> + /*
> + * Return old value in src_reg for BPF_XCHG &
> + * BPF_REG_0 for BPF_CMPXCHG.
> + */
> + EMIT(PPC_RAW_MR(imm == BPF_XCHG ? src_reg :
> bpf_to_ppc(BPF_REG_0),
> + _R0));
If the line spreads into two lines, compact form is probably not worth
it. Would be more readable as
if (imm == BPF_XCHG)
EMIT_PPC_RAW_MR(src_reg, _R0));
else
EMIT_PPC_RAW_MR(src_reg, bpf_to_ppc(BPF_REG_0)));
At the end, it's probably even more readable if you separate both cases
completely:
case BPF_CMPXCHG:
/* 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);
/* store new value */
EMIT(PPC_RAW_STWCX(src_reg, tmp_reg, dst_reg));
PPC_BCC_SHORT(COND_NE, tmp_idx);
/* Return old value in BPF_REG_0 */
EMIT_PPC_RAW_MR(src_reg, bpf_to_ppc(BPF_REG_0)));
break;
case BPF_XCHG:
/* store new value */
EMIT(PPC_RAW_STWCX(src_reg, tmp_reg, dst_reg));
PPC_BCC_SHORT(COND_NE, tmp_idx);
/* Return old value in src_reg */
EMIT_PPC_RAW_MR(src_reg, _R0));
break;
> + break;
> default:
> pr_err_ratelimited("eBPF filter atomic op code
> %02x (@%d) unsupported\n",
> code, i);
