Commit bb1965c6 authored by Luke Nelson's avatar Luke Nelson Committed by Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf, riscv: clear high 32 bits for ALU32 add/sub/neg/lsh/rsh/arsh

[ Upstream commit 1e692f09 ]

In BPF, 32-bit ALU operations should zero-extend their results into
the 64-bit registers.

The current BPF JIT on RISC-V emits incorrect instructions that perform
sign extension only (e.g., addw, subw) on 32-bit add, sub, lsh, rsh,
arsh, and neg. This behavior diverges from the interpreter and JITs
for other architectures.

This patch fixes the bugs by performing zero extension on the destination
register of 32-bit ALU operations.

Fixes: 2353ecc6 ("bpf, riscv: add BPF JIT for RV64G")
Cc: Xi Wang <xi.wang@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarLuke Nelson <luke.r.nels@gmail.com>
Acked-by: default avatarSong Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
Acked-by: default avatarBjörn Töpel <bjorn.topel@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: default avatarPalmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarAlexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarSasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
parent cb48f5e5
......@@ -751,10 +751,14 @@ static int emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
case BPF_ALU | BPF_ADD | BPF_X:
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_ADD | BPF_X:
emit(is64 ? rv_add(rd, rd, rs) : rv_addw(rd, rd, rs), ctx);
if (!is64)
emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
break;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_SUB | BPF_X:
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_SUB | BPF_X:
emit(is64 ? rv_sub(rd, rd, rs) : rv_subw(rd, rd, rs), ctx);
if (!is64)
emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
break;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_AND | BPF_X:
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_AND | BPF_X:
......@@ -795,14 +799,20 @@ static int emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
case BPF_ALU | BPF_LSH | BPF_X:
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_LSH | BPF_X:
emit(is64 ? rv_sll(rd, rd, rs) : rv_sllw(rd, rd, rs), ctx);
if (!is64)
emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
break;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_RSH | BPF_X:
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_RSH | BPF_X:
emit(is64 ? rv_srl(rd, rd, rs) : rv_srlw(rd, rd, rs), ctx);
if (!is64)
emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
break;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_ARSH | BPF_X:
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_ARSH | BPF_X:
emit(is64 ? rv_sra(rd, rd, rs) : rv_sraw(rd, rd, rs), ctx);
if (!is64)
emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
break;
/* dst = -dst */
......@@ -810,6 +820,8 @@ static int emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_NEG:
emit(is64 ? rv_sub(rd, RV_REG_ZERO, rd) :
rv_subw(rd, RV_REG_ZERO, rd), ctx);
if (!is64)
emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
break;
/* dst = BSWAP##imm(dst) */
......@@ -964,14 +976,20 @@ static int emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
case BPF_ALU | BPF_LSH | BPF_K:
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_LSH | BPF_K:
emit(is64 ? rv_slli(rd, rd, imm) : rv_slliw(rd, rd, imm), ctx);
if (!is64)
emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
break;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_RSH | BPF_K:
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_RSH | BPF_K:
emit(is64 ? rv_srli(rd, rd, imm) : rv_srliw(rd, rd, imm), ctx);
if (!is64)
emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
break;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_ARSH | BPF_K:
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_ARSH | BPF_K:
emit(is64 ? rv_srai(rd, rd, imm) : rv_sraiw(rd, rd, imm), ctx);
if (!is64)
emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
break;
/* JUMP off */
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment