| Message ID | 20210929111855.50254-1-hbathini@linux.ibm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | bpf powerpc: Add BPF_PROBE_MEM support in powerpc JIT compiler | expand |
On 9/29/21 1:18 PM, Hari Bathini wrote: > Patch #1 & #2 are simple cleanup patches. Patch #3 refactors JIT > compiler code with the aim to simplify adding BPF_PROBE_MEM support. > Patch #4 introduces PPC_RAW_BRANCH() macro instead of open coding > branch instruction. Patch #5 & #7 add BPF_PROBE_MEM support for PPC64 > & PPC32 JIT compilers respectively. Patch #6 & #8 handle bad userspace > pointers for PPC64 & PPC32 cases respectively. Michael, are you planning to pick up the series or shall we route via bpf-next? Thanks, Daniel > Changes in v4: > * Addressed all the review comments from Christophe. > > > Hari Bathini (4): > bpf powerpc: refactor JIT compiler code > powerpc/ppc-opcode: introduce PPC_RAW_BRANCH() macro > bpf ppc32: Add BPF_PROBE_MEM support for JIT > bpf ppc32: Access only if addr is kernel address > > Ravi Bangoria (4): > bpf powerpc: Remove unused SEEN_STACK > bpf powerpc: Remove extra_pass from bpf_jit_build_body() > bpf ppc64: Add BPF_PROBE_MEM support for JIT > bpf ppc64: Access only if addr is kernel address > > arch/powerpc/include/asm/ppc-opcode.h | 2 + > arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit.h | 19 +++-- > arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 72 ++++++++++++++++-- > arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c | 101 ++++++++++++++++++++++---- > arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c | 72 ++++++++++++++---- > 5 files changed, 224 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-) >
Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 9/29/21 1:18 PM, Hari Bathini wrote: >> Patch #1 & #2 are simple cleanup patches. Patch #3 refactors JIT >> compiler code with the aim to simplify adding BPF_PROBE_MEM support. >> Patch #4 introduces PPC_RAW_BRANCH() macro instead of open coding >> branch instruction. Patch #5 & #7 add BPF_PROBE_MEM support for PPC64 >> & PPC32 JIT compilers respectively. Patch #6 & #8 handle bad userspace >> pointers for PPC64 & PPC32 cases respectively. > > Michael, are you planning to pick up the series or shall we route via bpf-next? I just posted a few fixes to the powerpc BPF JIT (*). It would be nice if those can be picked up for v5.15 through bpf/master or powerpc/fixes. If so, this series may need to be rebased to address some conflicts. Otherwise, I can re-post my fixes atop this. Thanks, Naveen (*) https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev/cover.1633104510.git.naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com/T/#u
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> writes: > On 9/29/21 1:18 PM, Hari Bathini wrote: >> Patch #1 & #2 are simple cleanup patches. Patch #3 refactors JIT >> compiler code with the aim to simplify adding BPF_PROBE_MEM support. >> Patch #4 introduces PPC_RAW_BRANCH() macro instead of open coding >> branch instruction. Patch #5 & #7 add BPF_PROBE_MEM support for PPC64 >> & PPC32 JIT compilers respectively. Patch #6 & #8 handle bad userspace >> pointers for PPC64 & PPC32 cases respectively. > > Michael, are you planning to pick up the series or shall we route via bpf-next? Yeah I'll plan to take it, unless you think there is a strong reason it needs to go via the bpf tree (doesn't look like it from the diffstat). cheers
On 10/4/21 12:49 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> writes: >> On 9/29/21 1:18 PM, Hari Bathini wrote: >>> Patch #1 & #2 are simple cleanup patches. Patch #3 refactors JIT >>> compiler code with the aim to simplify adding BPF_PROBE_MEM support. >>> Patch #4 introduces PPC_RAW_BRANCH() macro instead of open coding >>> branch instruction. Patch #5 & #7 add BPF_PROBE_MEM support for PPC64 >>> & PPC32 JIT compilers respectively. Patch #6 & #8 handle bad userspace >>> pointers for PPC64 & PPC32 cases respectively. >> >> Michael, are you planning to pick up the series or shall we route via bpf-next? > > Yeah I'll plan to take it, unless you think there is a strong reason it > needs to go via the bpf tree (doesn't look like it from the diffstat). Sounds good to me, in that case, please also route the recent JIT fixes from Naveen through your tree. Thanks, Daniel
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> writes: > On 10/4/21 12:49 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote: >> Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> writes: >>> On 9/29/21 1:18 PM, Hari Bathini wrote: >>>> Patch #1 & #2 are simple cleanup patches. Patch #3 refactors JIT >>>> compiler code with the aim to simplify adding BPF_PROBE_MEM support. >>>> Patch #4 introduces PPC_RAW_BRANCH() macro instead of open coding >>>> branch instruction. Patch #5 & #7 add BPF_PROBE_MEM support for PPC64 >>>> & PPC32 JIT compilers respectively. Patch #6 & #8 handle bad userspace >>>> pointers for PPC64 & PPC32 cases respectively. >>> >>> Michael, are you planning to pick up the series or shall we route via bpf-next? >> >> Yeah I'll plan to take it, unless you think there is a strong reason it >> needs to go via the bpf tree (doesn't look like it from the diffstat). > > Sounds good to me, in that case, please also route the recent JIT fixes from > Naveen through your tree. Will do. cheers