From 443574b033876c85a35de4c65c14f7fe092222b2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Pu Lehui Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2024 10:33:06 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] riscv, bpf: Fix kfunc parameters incompatibility between bpf and riscv abi We encountered a failing case when running selftest in no_alu32 mode: The failure case is `kfunc_call/kfunc_call_test4` and its source code is like bellow: ``` long bpf_kfunc_call_test4(signed char a, short b, int c, long d) __ksym; int kfunc_call_test4(struct __sk_buff *skb) { ... tmp = bpf_kfunc_call_test4(-3, -30, -200, -1000); ... } ``` And its corresponding asm code is: ``` 0: r1 = -3 1: r2 = -30 2: r3 = 0xffffff38 # opcode: 18 03 00 00 38 ff ff ff 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 4: r4 = -1000 5: call bpf_kfunc_call_test4 ``` insn 2 is parsed to ld_imm64 insn to emit 0x00000000ffffff38 imm, and converted to int type and then send to bpf_kfunc_call_test4. But since it is zero-extended in the bpf calling convention, riscv jit will directly treat it as an unsigned 32-bit int value, and then fails with the message "actual 4294966063 != expected -1234". The reason is the incompatibility between bpf and riscv abi, that is, bpf will do zero-extension on uint, but riscv64 requires sign-extension on int or uint. We can solve this problem by sign extending the 32-bit parameters in kfunc. The issue is related to [0], and thanks to Yonghong and Alexei. Link: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84874 [0] Fixes: d40c3847b485 ("riscv, bpf: Add kfunc support for RV64") Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui Tested-by: Puranjay Mohan Reviewed-by: Puranjay Mohan Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240324103306.2202954-1-pulehui@huaweicloud.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov --- arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+) diff --git a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c index aac190085472..1adf2f39ce59 100644 --- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c +++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c @@ -1463,6 +1463,22 @@ int bpf_jit_emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx, if (ret < 0) return ret; + if (insn->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL) { + const struct btf_func_model *fm; + int idx; + + fm = bpf_jit_find_kfunc_model(ctx->prog, insn); + if (!fm) + return -EINVAL; + + for (idx = 0; idx < fm->nr_args; idx++) { + u8 reg = bpf_to_rv_reg(BPF_REG_1 + idx, ctx); + + if (fm->arg_size[idx] == sizeof(int)) + emit_sextw(reg, reg, ctx); + } + } + ret = emit_call(addr, fixed_addr, ctx); if (ret) return ret;