From nobody Sun Feb 8 18:33:16 2026 Received: from mail-pj1-f74.google.com (mail-pj1-f74.google.com [209.85.216.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 381F42940B for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2025 02:05:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.216.74 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738893932; cv=none; b=gQmPfPZVLFUlrzemRk/OCEpHpZz5VImvcAcE/wHYCPiOOrDwnDd5XcSuAqYbjb/nnnWzLchxQwEShfk1gKE3rPjbeL6pLqiLPj1iBwA76uqY/mG6adrYaM9min0e1I9gQTHb6SDEDkWJqKXev9vok3ApVpB3POetiEZPvW/uYMk= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738893932; c=relaxed/simple; bh=6gJQBoMJvd11kabG0mAvazNwvvNUp+qYDK9d+B95w4A=; h=Date:In-Reply-To:Mime-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:From: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=sJ8oFkP45KYdj6NeU72QIeyqEoiArHbIQyWCy5iMgBQeaTtfuyUDy6Exvs0lk12roYzMtiFTiSfEtvHTCM69DIprPpPwdeJd0AtGHYZai6kzvUPqT0YdaKYJh0z9Nl5vCcLE9r+iNdEMBBbHnOyAp5hPnyFDDe062VD+Zw3CiEs= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=flex--yepeilin.bounces.google.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b=jnPPLqHO; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.216.74 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=flex--yepeilin.bounces.google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="jnPPLqHO" Received: by mail-pj1-f74.google.com with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-2f9f2bf2aaeso3264142a91.1 for ; Thu, 06 Feb 2025 18:05:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20230601; t=1738893930; x=1739498730; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=rnyfeyX5KsaoejFCT4Pvz88fBme+Wvr3R6AqYNdoRSY=; b=jnPPLqHOLKGxsXCbQSKdHMada4V6RsENu4S9ge19PEmTp0HQZX1FL5QsZxJOcvvr+O 8TCZsCQJDyPBXXx9cRr6m4TKRbEAAW9oLiH3ciysEaLkwbmediXJxoygVhZYn76pMOm9 shq73/nEQRRdFtSKhgVb2BxrXnu1vxM2f5uC8IEgk8+QE/XcpdsO6+kQxtlId7r5blX4 2WMk219NdbDkNNB7f2O1TdjryEdRUczvnmG7qykg3jmpptdq50syZ11hyRRbJJq2Qsjv Q2MCqc2FLlypqiMAFNjJCS1ZXRBq4mqSxek94a7DL3yjFFfgjEsuQVY37xAsGqcv9Ae7 cEzQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1738893930; x=1739498730; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=rnyfeyX5KsaoejFCT4Pvz88fBme+Wvr3R6AqYNdoRSY=; b=Y3Bo23Nic6BGmWdRS3bEQoGM5pp/NUAmn4ex6Ajqul+fSTQZUeJqePc8ZRgga+2HTR O0h9XzmB59XF3U5KepZG+bwtcxgpYc8jQ6/8wLRdlbBrUnh6jQtYQGDDap9FNyCo0cVj t0nNJP1BMUi9upLcpmzezft5L9n1IaBrXFY+xSPv2hB3RlDi6Xw9N059jnVy7btxwHzW xBLt9m97iR/UXcyAtU7X9RlPPHCTneK1q0KiBfayPPFw7+HLoyes40QHHasU15655tdE E2LqCtMRW4V1H5YkSi+phLzuKQX5WOLsueJNiMmWFVXmHcKiY7U5b6mHHHHS/oIGDbL3 vOsw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVXOJgs8rTYatviFZgEgauz/Scdxa3t+7hTJBHCBj382QXlH+ax5MGS5eD6LfhPYx4kqWqkQKi31dNK/lU=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxDk8EQ8Qa+djUBEqad+4j+f3QkeDcjouhPLgUziFj92R0AVWuN BBMOXfhMsHn/SB0Lclackf5vT/6N6Ar/wedwsiu18Hj8IgY09xg2kyPAv8PULOos3Uux388U8dS EojwVDNeTvg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IF7v6kmdiGCxp2a0C++c/LlhPUZNvA/P6MK7nWPEghpqss2oNpv+9B3PTntoS5TGpQxBNw7FSCUTIfdEw== X-Received: from pjbsl12.prod.google.com ([2002:a17:90b:2e0c:b0:2e2:44f2:9175]) (user=yepeilin job=prod-delivery.src-stubby-dispatcher) by 2002:a17:90b:4cd1:b0:2fa:157e:c78e with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-2fa23f5ebb1mr2349911a91.7.1738893930308; Thu, 06 Feb 2025 18:05:30 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2025 02:05:23 +0000 In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 References: X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.48.1.502.g6dc24dfdaf-goog Message-ID: Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/9] bpf/verifier: Factor out check_atomic_rmw() From: Peilin Ye To: bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Cc: Peilin Ye , bpf@ietf.org, Xu Kuohai , Eduard Zingerman , David Vernet , Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , Andrii Nakryiko , Martin KaFai Lau , Song Liu , Yonghong Song , John Fastabend , KP Singh , Stanislav Fomichev , Hao Luo , Jiri Olsa , Jonathan Corbet , "Paul E. McKenney" , Puranjay Mohan , Ilya Leoshkevich , Heiko Carstens , Vasily Gorbik , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Quentin Monnet , Mykola Lysenko , Shuah Khan , Ihor Solodrai , Yingchi Long , Josh Don , Barret Rhoden , Neel Natu , Benjamin Segall , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Currently, check_atomic() only handles atomic read-modify-write (RMW) instructions. Since we are planning to introduce other types of atomic instructions (i.e., atomic load/store), extract the existing RMW handling logic into its own function named check_atomic_rmw(). Remove the @insn_idx parameter as it is not really necessary. Use 'env->insn_idx' instead, as in other places in verifier.c. Signed-off-by: Peilin Ye --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------- 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 0935b72fe716..39eb990ec003 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -7536,28 +7536,12 @@ static int check_mem_access(struct bpf_verifier_env= *env, int insn_idx, u32 regn static int save_aux_ptr_type(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, enum bpf_reg_ty= pe type, bool allow_trust_mismatch); =20 -static int check_atomic(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx, struct= bpf_insn *insn) +static int check_atomic_rmw(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, + struct bpf_insn *insn) { int load_reg; int err; =20 - switch (insn->imm) { - case BPF_ADD: - case BPF_ADD | BPF_FETCH: - case BPF_AND: - case BPF_AND | BPF_FETCH: - case BPF_OR: - case BPF_OR | BPF_FETCH: - case BPF_XOR: - case BPF_XOR | BPF_FETCH: - case BPF_XCHG: - case BPF_CMPXCHG: - break; - default: - verbose(env, "BPF_ATOMIC uses invalid atomic opcode %02x\n", insn->imm); - return -EINVAL; - } - if (BPF_SIZE(insn->code) !=3D BPF_W && BPF_SIZE(insn->code) !=3D BPF_DW) { verbose(env, "invalid atomic operand size\n"); return -EINVAL; @@ -7619,12 +7603,12 @@ static int check_atomic(struct bpf_verifier_env *en= v, int insn_idx, struct bpf_i /* Check whether we can read the memory, with second call for fetch * case to simulate the register fill. */ - err =3D check_mem_access(env, insn_idx, insn->dst_reg, insn->off, + err =3D check_mem_access(env, env->insn_idx, insn->dst_reg, insn->off, BPF_SIZE(insn->code), BPF_READ, -1, true, false); if (!err && load_reg >=3D 0) - err =3D check_mem_access(env, insn_idx, insn->dst_reg, insn->off, - BPF_SIZE(insn->code), BPF_READ, load_reg, - true, false); + err =3D check_mem_access(env, env->insn_idx, insn->dst_reg, + insn->off, BPF_SIZE(insn->code), + BPF_READ, load_reg, true, false); if (err) return err; =20 @@ -7634,13 +7618,34 @@ static int check_atomic(struct bpf_verifier_env *en= v, int insn_idx, struct bpf_i return err; } /* Check whether we can write into the same memory. */ - err =3D check_mem_access(env, insn_idx, insn->dst_reg, insn->off, + err =3D check_mem_access(env, env->insn_idx, insn->dst_reg, insn->off, BPF_SIZE(insn->code), BPF_WRITE, -1, true, false); if (err) return err; return 0; } =20 +static int check_atomic(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *ins= n) +{ + switch (insn->imm) { + case BPF_ADD: + case BPF_ADD | BPF_FETCH: + case BPF_AND: + case BPF_AND | BPF_FETCH: + case BPF_OR: + case BPF_OR | BPF_FETCH: + case BPF_XOR: + case BPF_XOR | BPF_FETCH: + case BPF_XCHG: + case BPF_CMPXCHG: + return check_atomic_rmw(env, insn); + default: + verbose(env, "BPF_ATOMIC uses invalid atomic opcode %02x\n", + insn->imm); + return -EINVAL; + } +} + /* When register 'regno' is used to read the stack (either directly or thr= ough * a helper function) make sure that it's within stack boundary and, depen= ding * on the access type and privileges, that all elements of the stack are @@ -19076,7 +19081,7 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) enum bpf_reg_type dst_reg_type; =20 if (BPF_MODE(insn->code) =3D=3D BPF_ATOMIC) { - err =3D check_atomic(env, env->insn_idx, insn); + err =3D check_atomic(env, insn); if (err) return err; env->insn_idx++; --=20 2.48.1.502.g6dc24dfdaf-goog