From 63d7b53ab59f0dd8540e672b49836493d1fa0a79 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ilya Leoshkevich Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2023 20:04:59 +0100 Subject: s390/bpf: Implement bpf_jit_supports_kfunc_call() Implement calling kernel functions from eBPF. In general, the eBPF ABI is fairly close to that of s390x, with one important difference: on s390x callers should sign-extend signed arguments. Handle that by using information returned by bpf_jit_find_kfunc_model(). Here is an example of how sign extensions works. Suppose we need to call the following function from BPF: ; long noinline bpf_kfunc_call_test4(signed char a, short b, int c, long d) 0000000000936a78 : 936a78: c0 04 00 00 00 00 jgnop bpf_kfunc_call_test4 ; return (long)a + (long)b + (long)c + d; 936a7e: b9 08 00 45 agr %r4,%r5 936a82: b9 08 00 43 agr %r4,%r3 936a86: b9 08 00 24 agr %r2,%r4 936a8a: c0 f4 00 1e 3b 27 jg <__s390_indirect_jump_r14> As per the s390x ABI, bpf_kfunc_call_test4() has the right to assume that a, b and c are sign-extended by the caller, which results in using 64-bit additions (agr) without any additional conversions. Without sign extension we would have the following on the JITed code side: ; tmp = bpf_kfunc_call_test4(-3, -30, -200, -1000); ; 5: b4 10 00 00 ff ff ff fd w1 = -3 0x3ff7fdcdad4: llilf %r2,0xfffffffd ; 6: b4 20 00 00 ff ff ff e2 w2 = -30 0x3ff7fdcdada: llilf %r3,0xffffffe2 ; 7: b4 30 00 00 ff ff ff 38 w3 = -200 0x3ff7fdcdae0: llilf %r4,0xffffff38 ; 8: b7 40 00 00 ff ff fc 18 r4 = -1000 0x3ff7fdcdae6: lgfi %r5,-1000 0x3ff7fdcdaec: mvc 64(4,%r15),160(%r15) 0x3ff7fdcdaf2: lgrl %r1,bpf_kfunc_call_test4@GOT 0x3ff7fdcdaf8: brasl %r14,__s390_indirect_jump_r1 This first 3 llilfs are 32-bit loads, that need to be sign-extended to 64 bits. Note: at the moment bpf_jit_find_kfunc_model() does not seem to play nicely with XDP metadata functions: add_kfunc_call() adds an "abstract" bpf_*() version to kfunc_btf_tab, but then fixup_kfunc_call() puts the concrete version into insn->imm, which bpf_jit_find_kfunc_model() cannot find. But this seems to be a common code problem. Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230129190501.1624747-7-iii@linux.ibm.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov --- arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) (limited to 'arch/s390/net') diff --git a/arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c index b84c7ddb758a..d0846ba818ee 100644 --- a/arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c +++ b/arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c @@ -1401,9 +1401,10 @@ static noinline int bpf_jit_insn(struct bpf_jit *jit, struct bpf_prog *fp, */ case BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL: { - u64 func; + const struct btf_func_model *m; bool func_addr_fixed; - int ret; + int j, ret; + u64 func; ret = bpf_jit_get_func_addr(fp, insn, extra_pass, &func, &func_addr_fixed); @@ -1425,6 +1426,21 @@ static noinline int bpf_jit_insn(struct bpf_jit *jit, struct bpf_prog *fp, /* mvc STK_OFF_TCCNT(4,%r15),N(%r15) */ _EMIT6(0xd203f000 | STK_OFF_TCCNT, 0xf000 | (STK_OFF_TCCNT + STK_OFF + stack_depth)); + + /* Sign-extend the kfunc arguments. */ + if (insn->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL) { + m = bpf_jit_find_kfunc_model(fp, insn); + if (!m) + return -1; + + for (j = 0; j < m->nr_args; j++) { + if (sign_extend(jit, BPF_REG_1 + j, + m->arg_size[j], + m->arg_flags[j])) + return -1; + } + } + /* lgrl %w1,func */ EMIT6_PCREL_RILB(0xc4080000, REG_W1, _EMIT_CONST_U64(func)); /* %r1() */ @@ -1980,6 +1996,11 @@ out: return fp; } +bool bpf_jit_supports_kfunc_call(void) +{ + return true; +} + int bpf_arch_text_poke(void *ip, enum bpf_text_poke_type t, void *old_addr, void *new_addr) { -- cgit