s390/bpf: Implement bpf_jit_supports_kfunc_call()

Implement calling kernel functions from eBPF. In general, the eBPF ABI
is fairly close to that of s390x, with one important difference: on
s390x callers should sign-extend signed arguments. Handle that by using
information returned by bpf_jit_find_kfunc_model().

Here is an example of how sign extensions works. Suppose we need to
call the following function from BPF:

    ; long noinline bpf_kfunc_call_test4(signed char a, short b, int c,
long d)
    0000000000936a78 <bpf_kfunc_call_test4>:
    936a78:       c0 04 00 00 00 00       jgnop bpf_kfunc_call_test4
    ;     return (long)a + (long)b + (long)c + d;
    936a7e:       b9 08 00 45             agr     %r4,%r5
    936a82:       b9 08 00 43             agr     %r4,%r3
    936a86:       b9 08 00 24             agr     %r2,%r4
    936a8a:       c0 f4 00 1e 3b 27       jg      <__s390_indirect_jump_r14>

As per the s390x ABI, bpf_kfunc_call_test4() has the right to assume
that a, b and c are sign-extended by the caller, which results in using
64-bit additions (agr) without any additional conversions. Without sign
extension we would have the following on the JITed code side:

    ; tmp = bpf_kfunc_call_test4(-3, -30, -200, -1000);
    ;        5:       b4 10 00 00 ff ff ff fd w1 = -3
    0x3ff7fdcdad4:       llilf   %r2,0xfffffffd
    ;        6:       b4 20 00 00 ff ff ff e2 w2 = -30
    0x3ff7fdcdada:       llilf   %r3,0xffffffe2
    ;        7:       b4 30 00 00 ff ff ff 38 w3 = -200
    0x3ff7fdcdae0:       llilf   %r4,0xffffff38
    ;       8:       b7 40 00 00 ff ff fc 18 r4 = -1000
    0x3ff7fdcdae6:       lgfi    %r5,-1000
    0x3ff7fdcdaec:       mvc     64(4,%r15),160(%r15)
    0x3ff7fdcdaf2:       lgrl    %r1,bpf_kfunc_call_test4@GOT
    0x3ff7fdcdaf8:       brasl   %r14,__s390_indirect_jump_r1

This first 3 llilfs are 32-bit loads, that need to be sign-extended
to 64 bits.

Note: at the moment bpf_jit_find_kfunc_model() does not seem to play
nicely with XDP metadata functions: add_kfunc_call() adds an "abstract"
bpf_*() version to kfunc_btf_tab, but then fixup_kfunc_call() puts the
concrete version into insn->imm, which bpf_jit_find_kfunc_model() cannot
find. But this seems to be a common code problem.

Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230129190501.1624747-7-iii@linux.ibm.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>

1 files changed, 23 insertions, 2 deletions

diff --git a/arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
index b84c7ddb758a..d0846ba818ee 100644
--- a/arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
+++ b/arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
@@ -1401,9 +1401,10 @@ static noinline int bpf_jit_insn(struct bpf_jit *jit, struct bpf_prog *fp,
 	 */
 	case BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL:
 	{
-		u64 func;
+		const struct btf_func_model *m;
 		bool func_addr_fixed;
-		int ret;
+		int j, ret;
+		u64 func;
 
 		ret = bpf_jit_get_func_addr(fp, insn, extra_pass,
 					    &func, &func_addr_fixed);
@@ -1425,6 +1426,21 @@ static noinline int bpf_jit_insn(struct bpf_jit *jit, struct bpf_prog *fp,
 		/* mvc STK_OFF_TCCNT(4,%r15),N(%r15) */
 		_EMIT6(0xd203f000 | STK_OFF_TCCNT,
 		       0xf000 | (STK_OFF_TCCNT + STK_OFF + stack_depth));
+
+		/* Sign-extend the kfunc arguments. */
+		if (insn->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL) {
+			m = bpf_jit_find_kfunc_model(fp, insn);
+			if (!m)
+				return -1;
+
+			for (j = 0; j < m->nr_args; j++) {
+				if (sign_extend(jit, BPF_REG_1 + j,
+						m->arg_size[j],
+						m->arg_flags[j]))
+					return -1;
+			}
+		}
+
 		/* lgrl %w1,func */
 		EMIT6_PCREL_RILB(0xc4080000, REG_W1, _EMIT_CONST_U64(func));
 		/* %r1() */
@@ -1980,6 +1996,11 @@ out:
 	return fp;
 }
 
+bool bpf_jit_supports_kfunc_call(void)
+{
+	return true;
+}
+
 int bpf_arch_text_poke(void *ip, enum bpf_text_poke_type t,
 		       void *old_addr, void *new_addr)
 {