s390/bpf: Fix optimizing out zero-extensions

commit db7bee653859ef7179be933e7d1384644f795f26 upstream.

Currently the JIT completely removes things like `reg32 += 0`,
however, the BPF_ALU semantics requires the target register to be
zero-extended in such cases.

Fix by optimizing out only the arithmetic operation, but not the
subsequent zero-extension.

Reported-by: Johan Almbladh <johan.almbladh@anyfinetworks.com>
Fixes: 0546231057 ("s390/bpf: Add s390x eBPF JIT compiler backend")
Reviewed-by: Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
urubino
Ilya Leoshkevich 3 years ago committed by Ruchit
parent 040a45442a
commit 321727da1d
  1. 50
      arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c

@ -592,10 +592,10 @@ static noinline int bpf_jit_insn(struct bpf_jit *jit, struct bpf_prog *fp, int i
EMIT4(0xb9080000, dst_reg, src_reg);
break;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_ADD | BPF_K: /* dst = (u32) dst + (u32) imm */
if (!imm)
break;
/* alfi %dst,imm */
EMIT6_IMM(0xc20b0000, dst_reg, imm);
if (imm != 0) {
/* alfi %dst,imm */
EMIT6_IMM(0xc20b0000, dst_reg, imm);
}
EMIT_ZERO(dst_reg);
break;
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_ADD | BPF_K: /* dst = dst + imm */
@ -617,10 +617,10 @@ static noinline int bpf_jit_insn(struct bpf_jit *jit, struct bpf_prog *fp, int i
EMIT4(0xb9090000, dst_reg, src_reg);
break;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_SUB | BPF_K: /* dst = (u32) dst - (u32) imm */
if (!imm)
break;
/* alfi %dst,-imm */
EMIT6_IMM(0xc20b0000, dst_reg, -imm);
if (imm != 0) {
/* alfi %dst,-imm */
EMIT6_IMM(0xc20b0000, dst_reg, -imm);
}
EMIT_ZERO(dst_reg);
break;
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_SUB | BPF_K: /* dst = dst - imm */
@ -647,10 +647,10 @@ static noinline int bpf_jit_insn(struct bpf_jit *jit, struct bpf_prog *fp, int i
EMIT4(0xb90c0000, dst_reg, src_reg);
break;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_MUL | BPF_K: /* dst = (u32) dst * (u32) imm */
if (imm == 1)
break;
/* msfi %r5,imm */
EMIT6_IMM(0xc2010000, dst_reg, imm);
if (imm != 1) {
/* msfi %r5,imm */
EMIT6_IMM(0xc2010000, dst_reg, imm);
}
EMIT_ZERO(dst_reg);
break;
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MUL | BPF_K: /* dst = dst * imm */
@ -711,6 +711,8 @@ static noinline int bpf_jit_insn(struct bpf_jit *jit, struct bpf_prog *fp, int i
if (BPF_OP(insn->code) == BPF_MOD)
/* lhgi %dst,0 */
EMIT4_IMM(0xa7090000, dst_reg, 0);
else
EMIT_ZERO(dst_reg);
break;
}
/* lhi %w0,0 */
@ -803,10 +805,10 @@ static noinline int bpf_jit_insn(struct bpf_jit *jit, struct bpf_prog *fp, int i
EMIT4(0xb9820000, dst_reg, src_reg);
break;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_XOR | BPF_K: /* dst = (u32) dst ^ (u32) imm */
if (!imm)
break;
/* xilf %dst,imm */
EMIT6_IMM(0xc0070000, dst_reg, imm);
if (imm != 0) {
/* xilf %dst,imm */
EMIT6_IMM(0xc0070000, dst_reg, imm);
}
EMIT_ZERO(dst_reg);
break;
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_XOR | BPF_K: /* dst = dst ^ imm */
@ -827,10 +829,10 @@ static noinline int bpf_jit_insn(struct bpf_jit *jit, struct bpf_prog *fp, int i
EMIT6_DISP_LH(0xeb000000, 0x000d, dst_reg, dst_reg, src_reg, 0);
break;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_LSH | BPF_K: /* dst = (u32) dst << (u32) imm */
if (imm == 0)
break;
/* sll %dst,imm(%r0) */
EMIT4_DISP(0x89000000, dst_reg, REG_0, imm);
if (imm != 0) {
/* sll %dst,imm(%r0) */
EMIT4_DISP(0x89000000, dst_reg, REG_0, imm);
}
EMIT_ZERO(dst_reg);
break;
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_LSH | BPF_K: /* dst = dst << imm */
@ -852,10 +854,10 @@ static noinline int bpf_jit_insn(struct bpf_jit *jit, struct bpf_prog *fp, int i
EMIT6_DISP_LH(0xeb000000, 0x000c, dst_reg, dst_reg, src_reg, 0);
break;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_RSH | BPF_K: /* dst = (u32) dst >> (u32) imm */
if (imm == 0)
break;
/* srl %dst,imm(%r0) */
EMIT4_DISP(0x88000000, dst_reg, REG_0, imm);
if (imm != 0) {
/* srl %dst,imm(%r0) */
EMIT4_DISP(0x88000000, dst_reg, REG_0, imm);
}
EMIT_ZERO(dst_reg);
break;
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_RSH | BPF_K: /* dst = dst >> imm */

Loading…
Cancel
Save