On Wed, 2017-04-12 at 09:58 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>
> > Are these hooked up to llvm intrinsics or so? If not, can I do that
> > through some kind of inline asm statement?
>
> llvm doesn't support bpf inline asm yet.
Ok.
> > In the samples, I only see people doing
> >
> > #define _htonl __builtin_bswap32
> >
> > but I'm not even completely convinced that's correct, since it
> > assumes
> > a little-endian host?
>
> oh well, time to face the music.
>
> In llvm backend I did:
> // bswap16, bswap32, bswap64
> class BSWAP<bits<32> SizeOp, string OpcodeStr, list<dag> Pattern>
> ...
> let op = 0xd; // BPF_END
> let BPFSrc = 1; // BPF_TO_BE (TODO: use BPF_TO_LE for big-endian
> target)
> let BPFClass = 4; // BPF_ALU
>
> so __builtin_bswap32() is not a normal bswap. It's only doing bswap
> if the compiled program running on little endian arch.
> The plan was to fix it up for -march=bpfeb target (hence the comment
> above), but it turned out that such __builtin_bswap32 matches
> perfectly to _htonl() semantics, so I left it as-is even for
> -march=bpfeb.
>
> On little endian:
> ld_abs_W = *(u32*) + real bswap32
> __builtin_bswap32() == bpf_to_be insn = real bswap32
>
> On big endian:
> ld_abs_W = *(u32*)
> __builtin_bswap32() == bpf_to_be insn = nop
>
> so in samples/bpf/*.c:
> load_word() + _htonl()(__builtin_bswap32) has the same semantics
> for both little and big endian archs, hence all networking sample
> code in
> samples/bpf/*_kern.c works fine.
>
> imo the whole thing is crazy ugly. llvm doesn't have 'htonl'
> equivalent builtin, so builtin_bswap was the closest I could use to
> generate bpf_to_[bl]e insn.
>
Awkward. How can this even be fixed without breaking all the existing
code?
I assume the BPF machine is intended to be endian-independent, which is
really the problem - normally you'd either
#define be32_to_cpu bswap32
or
#define be32_to_cpu(x) (x)
depending on the build architecture, I guess.
> To solve this properly I think we need two things:
> . proper bswap32 insn in BPF
Not sure you need that - what for? Normally this doesn't really get used
directly, I think? At least I don't really see a good reason for using it
directly. And reimplementing that now would break existing C code.
> . extend llvm with bpf_to_be/le builtins
> Both are not trivial amount of work.
It seems that perhaps the best way to solve this would be to actually
implement inline assembly. Then, existing C code that relies on the
(broken) bswap32 semantics can actually continue to work, if that
built-in isn't touched, and one could then implement the various
cpu_to_be32 and friends as inline assembly?
That would make it invisible to the LLVM optimiser though, so perhaps
not the best idea either.
johannes
