aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/include/linux/bpf.h
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorJiong Wang <jiong.wang@netronome.com>2019-05-24 23:25:15 +0100
committerAlexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>2019-05-24 18:58:37 -0700
commita4b1d3c1ddf6cb441187b6c130a473c16a05a356 (patch)
treefa54a491f3095c32cad767328a643211f6990951 /include/linux/bpf.h
parentbpf: introduce new mov32 variant for doing explicit zero extension (diff)
downloadlinux-dev-a4b1d3c1ddf6cb441187b6c130a473c16a05a356.tar.xz
linux-dev-a4b1d3c1ddf6cb441187b6c130a473c16a05a356.zip
bpf: verifier: insert zero extension according to analysis result
After previous patches, verifier will mark a insn if it really needs zero extension on dst_reg. It is then for back-ends to decide how to use such information to eliminate unnecessary zero extension code-gen during JIT compilation. One approach is verifier insert explicit zero extension for those insns that need zero extension in a generic way, JIT back-ends then do not generate zero extension for sub-register write at default. However, only those back-ends which do not have hardware zero extension want this optimization. Back-ends like x86_64 and AArch64 have hardware zero extension support that the insertion should be disabled. This patch introduces new target hook "bpf_jit_needs_zext" which returns false at default, meaning verifier zero extension insertion is disabled at default. A back-end could override this hook to return true if it doesn't have hardware support and want verifier insert zero extension explicitly. Offload targets do not use this native target hook, instead, they could get the optimization results using bpf_prog_offload_ops.finalize. NOTE: arches could have diversified features, it is possible for one arch to have hardware zero extension support for some sub-register write insns but not for all. For example, PowerPC, SPARC have zero extended loads, but not for alu32. So when verifier zero extension insertion enabled, these JIT back-ends need to peephole insns to remove those zero extension inserted for insn that actually has hardware zero extension support. The peephole could be as simple as looking the next insn, if it is a special zero extension insn then it is safe to eliminate it if the current insn has hardware zero extension support. Reviewed-by: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com> Signed-off-by: Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@netronome.com> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'include/linux/bpf.h')
-rw-r--r--include/linux/bpf.h1
1 files changed, 1 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
index 4fb3aa2dc975..d98141edb74b 100644
--- a/include/linux/bpf.h
+++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
@@ -370,6 +370,7 @@ struct bpf_prog_aux {
u32 id;
u32 func_cnt; /* used by non-func prog as the number of func progs */
u32 func_idx; /* 0 for non-func prog, the index in func array for func prog */
+ bool verifier_zext; /* Zero extensions has been inserted by verifier. */
bool offload_requested;
struct bpf_prog **func;
void *jit_data; /* JIT specific data. arch dependent */