powerpc/bpf: use bpf_jit_binary_pack_[alloc|finalize|free]

Use bpf_jit_binary_pack_alloc in powerpc jit. The jit engine first
writes the program to the rw buffer. When the jit is done, the program
is copied to the final location with bpf_jit_binary_pack_finalize.
With multiple jit_subprogs, bpf_jit_free is called on some subprograms
that haven't got bpf_jit_binary_pack_finalize() yet. Implement custom
bpf_jit_free() like in commit 1d5f82d9dd47 ("bpf, x86: fix freeing of
not-finalized bpf_prog_pack") to call bpf_jit_binary_pack_finalize(),
if necessary. As bpf_flush_icache() is not needed anymore, remove it.

Signed-off-by: Hari Bathini <hbathini@linux.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Song Liu <song@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://msgid.link/20231020141358.643575-6-hbathini@linux.ibm.com

powerpc/bpf: Fixed 'instead' typo in bpf_jit_build_body()

Fixed 'instead' typo.

Signed-off-by: Muhammad Muzammil <m.muzzammilashraf@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://msgid.link/20231013053118.11221-1-m.muzzammilashraf@gmail.com

powerpc/bpf/32: perform three operands ALU operations

When an ALU instruction is preceded by a MOV instruction
that just moves a source register into the destination register of
the ALU, replace that MOV+ALU instructions by an ALU operation
taking the source of the MOV as second source instead of using its
destination.

Before the change, code could look like the following, with
superfluous separate register move (mr) instructions.

70: 7f c6 f3 78 mr r6,r30
74: 7f a5 eb 78 mr r5,r29
78: 30 c6 ff f4 addic r6,r6,-12
7c: 7c a5 01 d4 addme r5,r5

With this commit, addition instructions take r30 and r29 directly.

70: 30 de ff f4 addic r6,r30,-12
74: 7c bd 01 d4 addme r5,r29

Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/b6719beaf01f9dcbcdbb787ef67c4a2f8e3a4cb6.1675245773.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu

powerpc/bpf/32: introduce a second source register for ALU operations

At the time being, all ALU operation are performed with same L-source
and destination, requiring the L-source to be moved into destination via
a separate register move, like:

70: 7f c6 f3 78 mr r6,r30
74: 7f a5 eb 78 mr r5,r29
78: 30 c6 ff f4 addic r6,r6,-12
7c: 7c a5 01 d4 addme r5,r5

Introduce a second source register to all ALU operations. For the time
being that second source register is made equal to the destination
register.

That change will allow, via following patch, to optimise the generated
code as:

70: 30 de ff f4 addic r6,r30,-12
74: 7c bd 01 d4 addme r5,r29

Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/d5aaaba50d9d6b4a0e9f0cd4a5e34101aca1e247.1675245773.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu

powerpc/bpf/32: Optimise some particular const operations

Simplify multiplications and divisions with constants when the
constant is 1 or -1.

When the constant is a power of 2, replace them by bit shits.

Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/e53b1f4a4150ec6cabcaeeef82bf9c361b5f9204.1675245773.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu

powerpc/bpf: Only pad length-variable code at initial pass

Now that two real additional passes are performed in case of extra pass
requested by BPF core, padding is not needed anymore except during
initial pass done before memory allocation to count maximum possible
program size.

So, only do the padding when 'image' is NULL.

Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/921851d6577badc1e6b08b270a0ced80a6a26d03.1675245773.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu

powerpc/bpf: Perform complete extra passes to update addresses

BPF core calls the jit compiler again for an extra pass in order
to properly set subprog addresses.

Unlike other architectures, powerpc only updates the addresses
during that extra pass. It means that holes must have been left
in the code in order to enable the maximum possible instruction
size.

In order to avoid waste of space, and waste of CPU time on powerpc
processors on which the NOP instruction is not 0-cycle, perform
two real additional passes.

Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/d484a4ac95949ff55fc4344b674e7c0d3ddbfcd5.1675245773.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu

powerpc/bpf/32: BPF prog is never called with more than one arg

BPF progs are never called with more than one argument, plus the
tail call count as a second argument when needed.

So, no need to retrieve 9th and 10th argument (5th 64 bits argument)
from the stack in prologue.

Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/89a200fb45048601475c092c5775294dee3886de.1675245773.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu

powerpc/bpf/32: Only set a stack frame when necessary

Until now a stack frame was set at all time due to the need
to keep tail call counter in the stack.

But since commit 89d21e259a94 ("powerpc/bpf/32: Fix Oops on tail call
tests") the tail call counter is passed via register r4. It is therefore
not necessary anymore to have a stack frame for that.

Just like PPC64, implement bpf_has_stack_frame() and only sets the frame
when needed.

The difference with PPC64 is that PPC32 doesn't have a redzone, so
the stack is required as soon as non volatile registers are used or
when tail call count is set up.

Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
[mpe: Fix commit reference in change log]
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/62d7b654a3cfe73d998697cb29bbc5ffd89bfdb1.1675245773.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu

powerpc/bpf/32: No need to zeroise r4 when not doing tail call

r4 is cleared at function entry and used as tail call count.

But when the function does not perform tail call, r4 is
ignored, so no need to clear it.

Replace it by a NOP in that case.

Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/9c5440b2b6d90a78600257433ac499b5c5101fbb.1675245773.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu

powerpc/bpf/32: Fix Oops on tail call tests

test_bpf tail call tests end up as:

test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 85 PASS
test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 111 PASS
test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 145 PASS
test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 170 PASS
test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 190 PASS
test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1
BUG: Unable to handle kernel data access on write at 0xf1b4e000
Faulting instruction address: 0xbe86b710
Oops: Kernel access of bad area, sig: 11 [#1]
BE PAGE_SIZE=4K MMU=Hash PowerMac
Modules linked in: test_bpf(+)
CPU: 0 PID: 97 Comm: insmod Not tainted 6.1.0-rc4+ #195
Hardware name: PowerMac3,1 750CL 0x87210 PowerMac
NIP: be86b710 LR: be857e88 CTR: be86b704
REGS: f1b4df20 TRAP: 0300 Not tainted (6.1.0-rc4+)
MSR: 00009032 <EE,ME,IR,DR,RI> CR: 28008242 XER: 00000000
DAR: f1b4e000 DSISR: 42000000
GPR00: 00000001 f1b4dfe0 c11d2280 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000002 00000000
GPR08: f1b4e000 be86b704 f1b4e000 00000000 00000000 100d816a f2440000 fe73baa8
GPR16: f2458000 00000000 c1941ae4 f1fe2248 00000045 c0de0000 f2458030 00000000
GPR24: 000003e8 0000000f f2458000 f1b4dc90 3e584b46 00000000 f24466a0 c1941a00
NIP [be86b710] 0xbe86b710
LR [be857e88] __run_one+0xec/0x264 [test_bpf]
Call Trace:
[f1b4dfe0] [00000002] 0x2 (unreliable)
Instruction dump:
XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX
---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---

This is a tentative to write above the stack. The problem is encoutered
with tests added by commit 38608ee7b690 ("bpf, tests: Add load store
test case for tail call")

This happens because tail call is done to a BPF prog with a different
stack_depth. At the time being, the stack is kept as is when the caller
tail calls its callee. But at exit, the callee restores the stack based
on its own properties. Therefore here, at each run, r1 is erroneously
increased by 32 - 16 = 16 bytes.

This was done that way in order to pass the tail call count from caller
to callee through the stack. As powerpc32 doesn't have a red zone in
the stack, it was necessary the maintain the stack as is for the tail
call. But it was not anticipated that the BPF frame size could be
different.

Let's take a new approach. Use register r4 to carry the tail call count
during the tail call, and save it into the stack at function entry if
required. This means the input parameter must be in r3, which is more
correct as it is a 32 bits parameter, then tail call better match with
normal BPF function entry, the down side being that we move that input
parameter back and forth between r3 and r4. That can be optimised later.

Doing that also has the advantage of maximising the common parts between
tail calls and a normal function exit.

With the fix, tail call tests are now successfull:

test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 53 PASS
test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 115 PASS
test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 154 PASS
test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 165 PASS
test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 101 PASS
test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 141 PASS
test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 994 PASS
test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 140975 PASS
test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 110 PASS
test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 69 PASS
test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed]

Suggested-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Fixes: 51c66ad849a7 ("powerpc/bpf: Implement extended BPF on PPC32")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
Tested-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/757acccb7fbfc78efa42dcf3c974b46678198905.1669278887.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu

powerpc/bpf/32: Add instructions for atomic_[cmp]xchg

This adds two atomic opcodes BPF_XCHG and BPF_CMPXCHG on ppc32, both
of which include the BPF_FETCH flag. The kernel's atomic_cmpxchg
operation fundamentally has 3 operands, but we only have two register
fields. Therefore the operand we compare against (the kernel's API
calls it 'old') is hard-coded to be BPF_REG_R0. Also, kernel's
atomic_cmpxchg returns the previous value at dst_reg + off. JIT the
same for BPF too with return value put in BPF_REG_0.

BPF_REG_R0 = atomic_cmpxchg(dst_reg + off, BPF_REG_R0, src_reg);

Signed-off-by: Hari Bathini <hbathini@linux.ibm.com>
Tested-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (ppc64le)
Reviewed-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220610155552.25892-6-hbathini@linux.ibm.com

powerpc/bpf/32: add support for BPF_ATOMIC bitwise operations

Adding instructions for ppc32 for

atomic_and
atomic_or
atomic_xor
atomic_fetch_add
atomic_fetch_and
atomic_fetch_or
atomic_fetch_xor

Signed-off-by: Hari Bathini <hbathini@linux.ibm.com>
Tested-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (ppc64le)
Reviewed-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220610155552.25892-5-hbathini@linux.ibm.com

powerpc/bpf: Simplify bpf_to_ppc() and adopt it for powerpc64

Convert bpf_to_ppc() to a macro to help simplify its usage since
codegen_context is available in all places it is used. Adopt it also for
powerpc64 for uniformity and get rid of the global b2p structure.

Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/09f0540ce3e0cd4120b5b33993b5e73b6ef9e979.1644834730.git.naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com

powerpc/bpf: Use _Rn macros for GPRs

Use _Rn macros to specify register names to make their usage clear.

Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/7df626b8cdc6141d4295ac16137c82ad570b6637.1644834730.git.naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com

powerpc/bpf: Cleanup bpf_jit.h

- PPC_EX32() is only used by ppc32 JIT. Move it to bpf_jit_comp32.c
- PPC_LI64() is only valid in ppc64. #ifdef it
- PPC_FUNC_ADDR() is not used anymore. Remove it.

Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/58f5b66b2f8546bbbee620f62103a8e97a63eb7c.1644834730.git.naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com

powerpc/bpf: Rename PPC_BL_ABS() to PPC_BL()

PPC_BL_ABS() is just doing a relative branch with link. The name
suggests that it is for branching to an absolute address, which is
incorrect. Rename the macro to a more appropriate PPC_BL().

Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/f0e57b6c7a6ee40dba645535b70da46f46e8af5e.1644834730.git.naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com

powerpc64/bpf elfv1: Do not load TOC before calling functions

BPF helpers always reside in core kernel and all BPF programs use the
kernel TOC. As such, there is no need to load the TOC before calling
helpers or other BPF functions. Drop code to do the same.

Add a check to ensure we don't proceed if this assumption ever changes
in future.

Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/a3cd3da4d24d95d845cd10382b1af083600c9074.1644834730.git.naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com

powerpc/bpf: Handle large branch ranges with BPF_EXIT

In some scenarios, it is possible that the program epilogue is outside
the branch range for a BPF_EXIT instruction. Instead of rejecting such
programs, emit epilogue as an alternate exit point from the program.
Track the location of the same so that subsequent exits can take either
of the two paths.

Reported-by: Jordan Niethe <jniethe5@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/33aa2e92645a92712be23b18035a2c6dcb92ff8d.1644834730.git.naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com

powerpc/bpf: Emit a single branch instruction for known short branch ranges

PPC_BCC() emits two instructions to accommodate scenarios where we need
to branch outside the range of a conditional branch. PPC_BCC_SHORT()
emits a single branch instruction and can be used when the branch is
known to be within a conditional branch range.

Convert some of the uses of PPC_BCC() in the powerpc BPF JIT over to
PPC_BCC_SHORT() where we know the branch range.

Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/edbca01377d1d5f472868bf6d8962b0a0d85b96f.1644834730.git.naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com

powerpc/bpf: Always reallocate BPF_REG_5, BPF_REG_AX and TMP_REG when possible

BPF_REG_5, BPF_REG_AX and TMP_REG are mapped on non volatile registers
because there are not enough volatile registers, but they don't need
to be preserved on function calls.

So when some volatile registers become available, those registers can
always be reallocated regardless of whether SEEN_FUNC is set or not.

Suggested-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
Reviewed-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/b04c246874b716911139c04bc004b3b14eed07ef.1641817763.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu

powerpc/bpf: Update ldimm64 instructions during extra pass

These instructions are updated after the initial JIT, so redo codegen
during the extra pass. Rename bpf_jit_fixup_subprog_calls() to clarify
that this is more than just subprog calls.

Fixes: 69c087ba6225b5 ("bpf: Add bpf_for_each_map_elem() helper")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v5.15
Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Tested-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/7cc162af77ba918eb3ecd26ec9e7824bc44b1fae.1641468127.git.naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com

powerpc32/bpf: Fix codegen for bpf-to-bpf calls

Pad instructions emitted for BPF_CALL so that the number of instructions
generated does not change for different function addresses. This is
especially important for calls to other bpf functions, whose address
will only be known during extra pass.

Fixes: 51c66ad849a703 ("powerpc/bpf: Implement extended BPF on PPC32")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v5.13+
Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/52d8fe51f7620a6f27f377791564d79d75463576.1641468127.git.naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com

bpf ppc32: Access only if addr is kernel address

With KUAP enabled, any kernel code which wants to access userspace
needs to be surrounded by disable-enable KUAP. But that is not
happening for BPF_PROBE_MEM load instruction. Though PPC32 does not
support read protection, considering the fact that PTR_TO_BTF_ID
(which uses BPF_PROBE_MEM mode) could either be a valid kernel pointer
or NULL but should never be a pointer to userspace address, execute
BPF_PROBE_MEM load only if addr is kernel address, otherwise set
dst_reg=0 and move on.

This will catch NULL, valid or invalid userspace pointers. Only bad
kernel pointer will be handled by BPF exception table.

[Alexei suggested for x86]

Suggested-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Hari Bathini <hbathini@linux.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211012123056.485795-9-hbathini@linux.ibm.com

bpf ppc32: Add BPF_PROBE_MEM support for JIT

BPF load instruction with BPF_PROBE_MEM mode can cause a fault
inside kernel. Append exception table for such instructions
within BPF program.

Unlike other archs which uses extable 'fixup' field to pass dest_reg
and nip, BPF exception table on PowerPC follows the generic PowerPC
exception table design, where it populates both fixup and extable
sections within BPF program. fixup section contains 3 instructions,
first 2 instructions clear dest_reg (lower & higher 32-bit registers)
and last instruction jumps to next instruction in the BPF code.
extable 'insn' field contains relative offset of the instruction and
'fixup' field contains relative offset of the fixup entry. Example
layout of BPF program with extable present:

+------------------+
| |
| |
0x4020 -->| lwz r28,4(r4) |
| |
| |
0x40ac -->| lwz r3,0(r24) |
| lwz r4,4(r24) |
| |
| |
|------------------|
0x4278 -->| li r28,0 | \
| li r27,0 | | fixup entry
| b 0x4024 | /
0x4284 -->| li r4,0 |
| li r3,0 |
| b 0x40b4 |
|------------------|
0x4290 -->| insn=0xfffffd90 | \ extable entry
| fixup=0xffffffe4 | /
0x4298 -->| insn=0xfffffe14 |
| fixup=0xffffffe8 |
+------------------+

(Addresses shown here are chosen random, not real)

Signed-off-by: Hari Bathini <hbathini@linux.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211012123056.485795-8-hbathini@linux.ibm.com

bpf ppc64: Add BPF_PROBE_MEM support for JIT

BPF load instruction with BPF_PROBE_MEM mode can cause a fault
inside kernel. Append exception table for such instructions
within BPF program.

Unlike other archs which uses extable 'fixup' field to pass dest_reg
and nip, BPF exception table on PowerPC follows the generic PowerPC
exception table design, where it populates both fixup and extable
sections within BPF program. fixup section contains two instructions,
first instruction clears dest_reg and 2nd jumps to next instruction
in the BPF code. extable 'insn' field contains relative offset of
the instruction and 'fixup' field contains relative offset of the
fixup entry. Example layout of BPF program with extable present:

+------------------+
| |
| |
0x4020 -->| ld r27,4(r3) |
| |
| |
0x40ac -->| lwz r3,0(r4) |
| |
| |
|------------------|
0x4280 -->| li r27,0 | \ fixup entry
| b 0x4024 | /
0x4288 -->| li r3,0 |
| b 0x40b0 |
|------------------|
0x4290 -->| insn=0xfffffd90 | \ extable entry
| fixup=0xffffffec | /
0x4298 -->| insn=0xfffffe14 |
| fixup=0xffffffec |
+------------------+

(Addresses shown here are chosen random, not real)

Signed-off-by: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Hari Bathini <hbathini@linux.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211012123056.485795-6-hbathini@linux.ibm.com

bpf powerpc: refactor JIT compiler code

Refactor powerpc LDX JITing code to simplify adding BPF_PROBE_MEM
support.

Signed-off-by: Hari Bathini <hbathini@linux.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211012123056.485795-4-hbathini@linux.ibm.com

bpf powerpc: Remove extra_pass from bpf_jit_build_body()

In case of extra_pass, usual JIT passes are always skipped. So,
extra_pass is always false while calling bpf_jit_build_body() and
can be removed.

Signed-off-by: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211012123056.485795-3-hbathini@linux.ibm.com

bpf: Change value of MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT from 32 to 33

In the current code, the actual max tail call count is 33 which is greater
than MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT (defined as 32). The actual limit is not consistent
with the meaning of MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT and thus confusing at first glance.
We can see the historical evolution from commit 04fd61ab36ec ("bpf: allow
bpf programs to tail-call other bpf programs") and commit f9dabe016b63
("bpf: Undo off-by-one in interpreter tail call count limit"). In order
to avoid changing existing behavior, the actual limit is 33 now, this is
reasonable.

After commit 874be05f525e ("bpf, tests: Add tail call test suite"), we can
see there exists failed testcase.

On all archs when CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON is not set:
# echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable
# modprobe test_bpf
# dmesg | grep -w FAIL
Tail call error path, max count reached jited:0 ret 34 != 33 FAIL

On some archs:
# echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable
# modprobe test_bpf
# dmesg | grep -w FAIL
Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 ret 34 != 33 FAIL

Although the above failed testcase has been fixed in commit 18935a72eb25
("bpf/tests: Fix error in tail call limit tests"), it would still be good
to change the value of MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT from 32 to 33 to make the code
more readable.

The 32-bit x86 JIT was using a limit of 32, just fix the wrong comments and
limit to 33 tail calls as the constant MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT updated. For the
mips64 JIT, use "ori" instead of "addiu" as suggested by Johan Almbladh.
For the riscv JIT, use RV_REG_TCC directly to save one register move as
suggested by Björn Töpel. For the other implementations, no function changes,
it does not change the current limit 33, the new value of MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT
can reflect the actual max tail call count, the related tail call testcases
in test_bpf module and selftests can work well for the interpreter and the
JIT.

Here are the test results on x86_64:

# uname -m
x86_64
# echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable
# modprobe test_bpf test_suite=test_tail_calls
# dmesg | tail -1
test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 8 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [0/8 JIT'ed]
# rmmod test_bpf
# echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable
# modprobe test_bpf test_suite=test_tail_calls
# dmesg | tail -1
test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 8 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [8/8 JIT'ed]
# rmmod test_bpf
# ./test_progs -t tailcalls
#142 tailcalls:OK
Summary: 1/11 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED

Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Tested-by: Johan Almbladh <johan.almbladh@anyfinetworks.com>
Tested-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Johan Almbladh <johan.almbladh@anyfinetworks.com>
Acked-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/1636075800-3264-1-git-send-email-yangtiezhu@loongson.cn

powerpc/bpf ppc32: Fix BPF_SUB when imm == 0x80000000

Special case handling of the smallest 32-bit negative number for BPF_SUB.

Fixes: 51c66ad849a703 ("powerpc/bpf: Implement extended BPF on PPC32")
Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/7135360a0cdf70adedbccf9863128b8daef18764.1633464148.git.naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com

powerpc/bpf ppc32: Do not emit zero extend instruction for 64-bit BPF_END

Suppress emitting zero extend instruction for 64-bit BPF_END_FROM_[L|B]E
operation.

Fixes: 51c66ad849a703 ("powerpc/bpf: Implement extended BPF on PPC32")
Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/b4e3c3546121315a8e2059b19a1bda84971816e4.1633464148.git.naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com

powerpc/bpf ppc32: Fix JMP32_JSET_K

'andi' only takes an unsigned 16-bit value. Correct the imm range used
when emitting andi.

Fixes: 51c66ad849a703 ("powerpc/bpf: Implement extended BPF on PPC32")
Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/b94489f52831305ec15aca4dd04a3527236be7e8.1633464148.git.naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com

powerpc/bpf ppc32: Fix ALU32 BPF_ARSH operation

Correct the destination register used for ALU32 BPF_ARSH operation.

Fixes: 51c66ad849a703 ("powerpc/bpf: Implement extended BPF on PPC32")
Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/6d24c1f9e79b6f61f5135eaf2ea1e8bcd4dac87b.1633464148.git.naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com

powerpc/bpf: Validate branch ranges

Add checks to ensure that we never emit branch instructions with
truncated branch offsets.

Suggested-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Tested-by: Johan Almbladh <johan.almbladh@anyfinetworks.com>
Reviewed-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
Acked-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
Acked-by: Johan Almbladh <johan.almbladh@anyfinetworks.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/71d33a6b7603ec1013c9734dd8bdd4ff5e929142.1633464148.git.naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com

bpf: Introduce BPF nospec instruction for mitigating Spectre v4

In case of JITs, each of the JIT backends compiles the BPF nospec instruction
/either/ to a machine instruction which emits a speculation barrier /or/ to
/no/ machine instruction in case the underlying architecture is not affected
by Speculative Store Bypass or has different mitigations in place already.

This covers both x86 and (implicitly) arm64: In case of x86, we use 'lfence'
instruction for mitigation. In case of arm64, we rely on the firmware mitigation
as controlled via the ssbd kernel parameter. Whenever the mitigation is enabled,
it works for all of the kernel code with no need to provide any additional
instructions here (hence only comment in arm64 JIT). Other archs can follow
as needed. The BPF nospec instruction is specifically targeting Spectre v4
since i) we don't use a serialization barrier for the Spectre v1 case, and
ii) mitigation instructions for v1 and v4 might be different on some archs.

The BPF nospec is required for a future commit, where the BPF verifier does
annotate intermediate BPF programs with speculation barriers.

Co-developed-by: Piotr Krysiuk <piotras@gmail.com>
Co-developed-by: Benedict Schlueter <benedict.schlueter@rub.de>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Signed-off-by: Piotr Krysiuk <piotras@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Benedict Schlueter <benedict.schlueter@rub.de>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>

powerpc/bpf: Reject atomic ops in ppc32 JIT

Commit 91c960b0056672 ("bpf: Rename BPF_XADD and prepare to encode other
atomics in .imm") converted BPF_XADD to BPF_ATOMIC and updated all JIT
implementations to reject JIT'ing instructions with an immediate value
different from BPF_ADD. However, ppc32 BPF JIT was implemented around
the same time and didn't include the same change. Update the ppc32 JIT
accordingly.

Fixes: 51c66ad849a7 ("powerpc/bpf: Implement extended BPF on PPC32")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v5.13+
Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/426699046d89fe50f66ecf74bd31c01eda976ba5.1625145429.git.naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com

powerpc/bpf: Use bctrl for making function calls

blrl corrupts the link stack. Instead use bctrl when making function
calls from BPF programs.

Reported-by: Anton Blanchard <anton@ozlabs.org>
Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210609090024.1446800-1-naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com

powerpc/ebpf32: Use _Rx macros instead of __REG_Rx ones

To increase readability, use _Rx macros instead of __REG_Rx.

Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/eb7ec6297b5d16f141c5866da3975b418e47431b.1621506159.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu

powerpc/ebpf32: Use standard function call for functions within 32M distance

If the target of a function call is within 32 Mbytes distance, use a
standard function call with 'bl' instead of the 'lis/ori/mtlr/blrl'
sequence.

In the first pass, no memory has been allocated yet and the code
position is not known yet (image pointer is NULL). This pass is there
to calculate the amount of memory to allocate for the EBPF code, so
assume the 4 instructions sequence is required, so that enough memory
is allocated.

Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/74944a1e3e5cfecc141e440a6ccd37920e186b70.1618227846.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu

powerpc/ebpf32: Rework 64 bits shifts to avoid tests and branches

Re-implement BPF_ALU64 | BPF_{LSH/RSH/ARSH} | BPF_X with branchless
implementation copied from misc_32.S.

Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/03167350b05b2fe8b741e53363ee37709d0f878d.1618227846.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu

powerpc/ebpf32: Fix comment on BPF_ALU{64} | BPF_LSH | BPF_K

Replace <<== by <<=

Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/34d12a4f75cb8b53a925fada5e7ddddd3b145203.1618227846.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu

powerpc/bpf: Reallocate BPF registers to volatile registers when possible on PPC32

When the BPF routine doesn't call any function, the non volatile
registers can be reallocated to volatile registers in order to
avoid having to save them/restore on the stack.

Before this patch, the test #359 ADD default X is:

0: 7c 64 1b 78 mr r4,r3
4: 38 60 00 00 li r3,0
8: 94 21 ff b0 stwu r1,-80(r1)
c: 60 00 00 00 nop
10: 92 e1 00 2c stw r23,44(r1)
14: 93 01 00 30 stw r24,48(r1)
18: 93 21 00 34 stw r25,52(r1)
1c: 93 41 00 38 stw r26,56(r1)
20: 39 80 00 00 li r12,0
24: 39 60 00 00 li r11,0
28: 3b 40 00 00 li r26,0
2c: 3b 20 00 00 li r25,0
30: 7c 98 23 78 mr r24,r4
34: 7c 77 1b 78 mr r23,r3
38: 39 80 00 42 li r12,66
3c: 39 60 00 00 li r11,0
40: 7d 8c d2 14 add r12,r12,r26
44: 39 60 00 00 li r11,0
48: 7d 83 63 78 mr r3,r12
4c: 82 e1 00 2c lwz r23,44(r1)
50: 83 01 00 30 lwz r24,48(r1)
54: 83 21 00 34 lwz r25,52(r1)
58: 83 41 00 38 lwz r26,56(r1)
5c: 38 21 00 50 addi r1,r1,80
60: 4e 80 00 20 blr

After this patch, the same test has become:

0: 7c 64 1b 78 mr r4,r3
4: 38 60 00 00 li r3,0
8: 94 21 ff b0 stwu r1,-80(r1)
c: 60 00 00 00 nop
10: 39 80 00 00 li r12,0
14: 39 60 00 00 li r11,0
18: 39 00 00 00 li r8,0
1c: 38 e0 00 00 li r7,0
20: 7c 86 23 78 mr r6,r4
24: 7c 65 1b 78 mr r5,r3
28: 39 80 00 42 li r12,66
2c: 39 60 00 00 li r11,0
30: 7d 8c 42 14 add r12,r12,r8
34: 39 60 00 00 li r11,0
38: 7d 83 63 78 mr r3,r12
3c: 38 21 00 50 addi r1,r1,80
40: 4e 80 00 20 blr

Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/b94562d7d2bb21aec89de0c40bb3cd91054b65a2.1616430991.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu

powerpc/bpf: Implement extended BPF on PPC32

Implement Extended Berkeley Packet Filter on Powerpc 32

Test result with test_bpf module:

test_bpf: Summary: 378 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [354/366 JIT'ed]

Registers mapping:

[BPF_REG_0] = r11-r12
/* function arguments */
[BPF_REG_1] = r3-r4
[BPF_REG_2] = r5-r6
[BPF_REG_3] = r7-r8
[BPF_REG_4] = r9-r10
[BPF_REG_5] = r21-r22 (Args 9 and 10 come in via the stack)
/* non volatile registers */
[BPF_REG_6] = r23-r24
[BPF_REG_7] = r25-r26
[BPF_REG_8] = r27-r28
[BPF_REG_9] = r29-r30
/* frame pointer aka BPF_REG_10 */
[BPF_REG_FP] = r17-r18
/* eBPF jit internal registers */
[BPF_REG_AX] = r19-r20
[TMP_REG] = r31

As PPC32 doesn't have a redzone in the stack, a stack frame must always
be set in order to host at least the tail count counter.

The stack frame remains for tail calls, it is set by the first callee
and freed by the last callee.

r0 is used as temporary register as much as possible. It is referenced
directly in the code in order to avoid misusing it, because some
instructions interpret it as value 0 instead of register r0
(ex: addi, addis, stw, lwz, ...)

The following operations are not implemented:

case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_DIV | BPF_X: /* dst /= src */
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOD | BPF_X: /* dst %= src */
case BPF_STX | BPF_XADD | BPF_DW: /* *(u64 *)(dst + off) += src */

The following operations are only implemented for power of two constants:

case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOD | BPF_K: /* dst %= imm */
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_DIV | BPF_K: /* dst /= imm */

Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/61d8b149176ddf99e7d5cef0b6dc1598583ca202.1616430991.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu