lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: MIPS eBPF JIT support on pre-32R2
Hi Alexander,

On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 03:45:27PM +0300, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I'm writing about lines arch/mips/net/ebpf_jit.c:1806-1807:
>
> if (!prog->jit_requested || MIPS_ISA_REV < 2)
> return prog;
>
> Do pre-32R2 architectures (32R1, maybe even R3000-like) actually support
> this eBPF JIT code?

No, they don't; the eBPF JIT makes unconditional use of at least the
(d)ins & (d)ext instructions which were added in MIPSr2, so it would
result in reserved instruction exceptions & panics if enabled on
pre-MIPSr2 CPUs.

> If they do, then the condition 'MIPS_ISA_REV < 2'
> should be removed as it is always true for them and tells CC to remove
> JIT completely.
>
> If they don't support instructions from this JIT, then the line
> arch/mips/Kconfig:50:
>
> select HAVE_EBPF_JIT if (!CPU_MICROMIPS)
>
> should be changed to something like:
>
> select HAVE_EBPF_JIT if !CPU_MICROMIPS && TARGET_ISA_REV >= 2
>
> (and then the mentioned 'if' condition would become redundant)

Good spot; I agree entirely, this dependency should be reflected in
Kconfig.

> At the moment it is possible to build a kernel without both JIT and
> interpreter, but with CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL=y (what should not be allowed
> I suppose?) within the following configuration:
>
> - select any pre-32R2 CPU (e.g. CONFIG_CPU_MIPS32_R1);
> - enable CONFIG_BPF_JIT (CONFIG_MIPS_EBPF_JIT will be autoselected);
> - enable CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON (this removes BPF interpreter from
> the system).
>
> I may prepare a proper patch by myself if needed (after clarification).

That would be great, thanks!

One thing to note is that I hope we'll restore the cBPF JIT with this
patch:

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mips/20191205182318.2761605-1-paulburton@kernel.org/T/#u

The cBPF JIT looks like it should work on older pre-MIPSr2 CPUs, so the
only way this is relevant is that your patch might have a minor
conflict. But I thought I'd mention it anyway :)

Thanks,
Paul

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-05 19:44    [W:0.052 / U:3.168 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site