IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
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 <bpf_kfunc_call_test4>:
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 <iii@linux.ibm.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230129190501.1624747-7-iii@linux.ibm.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
63d7b53ab5