[ Upstream commit 2f1b0d3d733169eb11680bfa97c266ae5e757148 ]
The RISC-V architecture does not expose sub-registers, and hold all
32-bit values in a sign-extended format [1] [2]:
| The compiler and calling convention maintain an invariant that all
| 32-bit values are held in a sign-extended format in 64-bit
| registers. Even 32-bit unsigned integers extend bit 31 into bits
| 63 through 32. Consequently, conversion between unsigned and
| signed 32-bit integers is a no-op, as is conversion from a signed
| 32-bit integer to a signed 64-bit integer.
While BPF, on the other hand, exposes sub-registers, and use
zero-extension (similar to arm64/x86).
This has led to some subtle bugs, where a BPF JITted program has not
sign-extended the a0 register (return value in RISC-V land), passed
the return value up the kernel, e.g.:
| int from_bpf(void);
|
| long foo(void)
| {
| return from_bpf();
| }
Here, a0 would be 0xffff_ffff, instead of the expected
0xffff_ffff_ffff_ffff.
Internally, the RISC-V JIT uses a5 as a dedicated register for BPF
return values.
Keep a5 zero-extended, but explicitly sign-extend a0 (which is used
outside BPF land). Now that a0 (RISC-V ABI) and a5 (BPF ABI) differs,
a0 is only moved to a5 for non-BPF native calls (BPF_PSEUDO_CALL).
Fixes: 2353ecc6f9 ("bpf, riscv: add BPF JIT for RV64G")
Signed-off-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn@rivosinc.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Link: https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/releases/download/riscv-isa-release-056b6ff-2023-10-02/unpriv-isa-asciidoc.pdf # [2]
Link: https://github.com/riscv-non-isa/riscv-elf-psabi-doc/releases/download/draft-20230929-e5c800e661a53efe3c2678d71a306323b60eb13b/riscv-abi.pdf # [2]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20231004120706.52848-2-bjorn@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
5bfc5a28b5