| Message ID | 1447365421-1309-3-git-send-email-yang.shi@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Yang Shi <yang.shi@linaro.org> wrote: > > Save and restore FP/LR in BPF prog prologue and epilogue, save SP to FP > in prologue in order to get the correct stack backtrace. > > However, ARM64 JIT used FP (x29) as eBPF fp register, FP is subjected to > change during function call so it may cause the BPF prog stack base address > change too. > > Use x25 to replace FP as BPF stack base register (fp). Since x25 is callee > saved register, so it will keep intact during function call. > It is initialized in BPF prog prologue when BPF prog is started to run > everytime. When BPF prog exits, it could be just tossed. > > So, the BPF stack layout looks like: > > high > original A64_SP => 0:+-----+ BPF prologue > | | FP/LR and callee saved registers > BPF fp register => -64:+-----+ > | | > | ... | BPF prog stack > | | > | | > current A64_SP/FP => +-----+ > | | > | ... | Function call stack > | | > +-----+ > low > Yang, for stack unwinding to work, shouldn't it be something like the following? | LR | A64_FP => | FP | | .. | -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
On 11/12/2015 7:28 PM, Z Lim wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Yang Shi <yang.shi@linaro.org> wrote: >> >> Save and restore FP/LR in BPF prog prologue and epilogue, save SP to FP >> in prologue in order to get the correct stack backtrace. >> >> However, ARM64 JIT used FP (x29) as eBPF fp register, FP is subjected to >> change during function call so it may cause the BPF prog stack base address >> change too. >> >> Use x25 to replace FP as BPF stack base register (fp). Since x25 is callee >> saved register, so it will keep intact during function call. >> It is initialized in BPF prog prologue when BPF prog is started to run >> everytime. When BPF prog exits, it could be just tossed. >> >> So, the BPF stack layout looks like: >> >> high >> original A64_SP => 0:+-----+ BPF prologue >> | | FP/LR and callee saved registers >> BPF fp register => -64:+-----+ >> | | >> | ... | BPF prog stack >> | | >> | | >> current A64_SP/FP => +-----+ >> | | >> | ... | Function call stack >> | | >> +-----+ >> low >> > > Yang, for stack unwinding to work, shouldn't it be something like the following? Yes, thanks for catching this. v3 will be post soon. Yang > > | LR | > A64_FP => | FP | > | .. | > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
diff --git a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c index ac8b548..8753bb7 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c +++ b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c @@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ static const int bpf2a64[] = { [BPF_REG_8] = A64_R(21), [BPF_REG_9] = A64_R(22), /* read-only frame pointer to access stack */ - [BPF_REG_FP] = A64_FP, + [BPF_REG_FP] = A64_R(25), /* temporary register for internal BPF JIT */ [TMP_REG_1] = A64_R(23), [TMP_REG_2] = A64_R(24), @@ -155,17 +155,41 @@ static void build_prologue(struct jit_ctx *ctx) stack_size += 4; /* extra for skb_copy_bits buffer */ stack_size = STACK_ALIGN(stack_size); + /* + * BPF prog stack layout + * + * high + * original A64_SP => 0:+-----+ BPF prologue + * | | FP/LR and callee saved registers + * BPF fp register => -64:+-----+ + * | | + * | ... | BPF prog stack + * | | + * | | + * current A64_SP/FP => +-----+ + * | | + * | ... | Function call stack + * | | + * +-----+ + * low + * + */ + + /* Save FP and LR registers to stay align with ARM64 AAPCS */ + emit(A64_PUSH(A64_FP, A64_LR, A64_SP), ctx); + /* Save callee-saved register */ emit(A64_PUSH(r6, r7, A64_SP), ctx); emit(A64_PUSH(r8, r9, A64_SP), ctx); if (ctx->tmp_used) emit(A64_PUSH(tmp1, tmp2, A64_SP), ctx); - /* Set up frame pointer */ + /* Set up BPF prog stack base register (x25) */ emit(A64_MOV(1, fp, A64_SP), ctx); - /* Set up BPF stack */ + /* Set up function call stack */ emit(A64_SUB_I(1, A64_SP, A64_SP, stack_size), ctx); + emit(A64_MOV(1, A64_FP, A64_SP), ctx); /* Clear registers A and X */ emit_a64_mov_i64(ra, 0, ctx); @@ -196,8 +220,8 @@ static void build_epilogue(struct jit_ctx *ctx) emit(A64_POP(r8, r9, A64_SP), ctx); emit(A64_POP(r6, r7, A64_SP), ctx); - /* Restore frame pointer */ - emit(A64_MOV(1, fp, A64_SP), ctx); + /* Restore FP/LR registers */ + emit(A64_POP(A64_FP, A64_LR, A64_SP), ctx); /* Set return value */ emit(A64_MOV(1, A64_R(0), r0), ctx);
Save and restore FP/LR in BPF prog prologue and epilogue, save SP to FP in prologue in order to get the correct stack backtrace. However, ARM64 JIT used FP (x29) as eBPF fp register, FP is subjected to change during function call so it may cause the BPF prog stack base address change too. Use x25 to replace FP as BPF stack base register (fp). Since x25 is callee saved register, so it will keep intact during function call. It is initialized in BPF prog prologue when BPF prog is started to run everytime. When BPF prog exits, it could be just tossed. So, the BPF stack layout looks like: high original A64_SP => 0:+-----+ BPF prologue | | FP/LR and callee saved registers BPF fp register => -64:+-----+ | | | ... | BPF prog stack | | | | current A64_SP/FP => +-----+ | | | ... | Function call stack | | +-----+ low CC: Zi Shen Lim <zlim.lnx@gmail.com> CC: Xi Wang <xi.wang@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <yang.shi@linaro.org> --- arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) -- 2.0.2 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/