From: Ilya Leoshkevich iii@linux.ibm.com
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: 054623105728 ("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
--- arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
--- a/arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c +++ b/arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c @@ -592,10 +592,10 @@ static noinline int bpf_jit_insn(struct 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 */