Re: [PATCH bpf] bpf: fix narrower loads on s390

[Ilya Leoshkevich]

> Am 17.07.2019 um 18:25 schrieb Y Song <ys114...@gmail.com>:
> 
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 3:36 AM Ilya Leoshkevich <i...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Here is a better one: len=0x11223344 and we would like to do
>> ((u8 *)&len)[3].
>> 
>> len is represented as `11 22 33 44` in memory, so the desired result is
>> 0x44. It can be obtained by doing (*(u32 *)&len) & 0xff, but today the
>> verifier does ((*(u32 *)&len) >> 24) & 0xff instead.
> 
> What you described above for the memory layout all makes sense.
> The root cause is for big endian, we should do *((u8 *)&len + 3).
> This is exactly what macros in test_pkt_md_access.c tries to do.
> 
> if  __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__
> #define TEST_FIELD(TYPE, FIELD, MASK)                                   \
>        {                                                               \
>                TYPE tmp = *(volatile TYPE *)&skb->FIELD;               \
>                if (tmp != ((*(volatile __u32 *)&skb->FIELD) & MASK))   \
>                        return TC_ACT_SHOT;                             \
>        }
> #else
> #define TEST_FIELD_OFFSET(a, b) ((sizeof(a) - sizeof(b)) / sizeof(b))
> #define TEST_FIELD(TYPE, FIELD, MASK)                                   \
>        {                                                               \
>                TYPE tmp = *((volatile TYPE *)&skb->FIELD +             \
>                              TEST_FIELD_OFFSET(skb->FIELD, TYPE));     \
>                if (tmp != ((*(volatile __u32 *)&skb->FIELD) & MASK))   \
>                        return TC_ACT_SHOT;                             \
>        }
> #endif
> 
> Could you check whether your __BYTE_ORDER__ is set
> correctly or not for this case? You may need to tweak Makefile
> if you are doing cross compilation, I am not sure how as I
> did not have environment.

I’m building natively on s390.

Here is the (formatted) preprocessed C code for the first condition:

{
        __u8 tmp = *((volatile __u8 *)&skb->len +
                ((sizeof(skb->len) - sizeof(__u8)) / sizeof(__u8)));
        if (tmp != ((*(volatile __u32 *)&skb->len) & 0xFF)) return 2;
};

So I believe the endianness is chosen correctly.

Here is the clang-generated BPF bytecode for the first condition:

# llvm-objdump -d test_pkt_md_access.o
0000000000000000 process:
       0:       71 21 00 03 00 00 00 00 r2 = *(u8 *)(r1 + 3)
       1:       61 31 00 00 00 00 00 00 r3 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 0)
       2:       57 30 00 00 00 00 00 ff r3 &= 255
       3:       5d 23 00 1d 00 00 00 00 if r2 != r3 goto +29 <LBB0_10>

This also looks good to me.

Finally, here is the verifier-generated BPF bytecode:

# bpftool prog dump xlated id 14
; TEST_FIELD(__u8,  len, 0xFF);
   0: (61) r2 = *(u32 *)(r1 +104)
   1: (bc) w2 = w2
   2: (74) w2 >>= 24
   3: (bc) w2 = w2
   4: (54) w2 &= 255
   5: (bc) w2 = w2

Here we can see the shift that I'm referring to. I believe we should
translate *(u8 *)(r1 + 3) in this case without this shift on big-endian
machines.

Best regards,
Ilya