nfp: bpf: support u16 and u32 multiplications

NFP supports u16 and u32 multiplication. Multiplication is done 8-bits per
step, therefore we need 2 steps for u16 and 4 steps for u32.

We also need one start instruction to initialize the sequence and one or
two instructions to fetch the result depending on either you need the high
halve of u32 multiplication.

For ALU64, if either operand is beyond u32's value range, we reject it. One
thing to note, if the source operand is BPF_K, then we need to check "imm"
field directly, and we'd reject it if it is negative.  Because for ALU64,
"imm" (with s32 type) is expected to be sign extended to s64 which NFP mul
doesn't support. For ALU32, it is fine for "imm" be negative though,
because the result is 32-bits and here is no difference on the low halve
of result for signed/unsigned mul, so we will get correct result.

Signed-off-by: Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@netronome.com>
Reviewed-by: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>
Acked-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>

1 files changed, 47 insertions, 11 deletions

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/bpf/verifier.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/bpf/verifier.c
index 7bd9666bd8ff..30d4f1580693 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -517,6 +517,51 @@ nfp_bpf_check_xadd(struct nfp_prog *nfp_prog, struct nfp_insn_meta *meta,
 }
 
 static int
+nfp_bpf_check_alu(struct nfp_prog *nfp_prog, struct nfp_insn_meta *meta,
+		  struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
+{
+	const struct bpf_reg_state *sreg =
+		cur_regs(env) + meta->insn.src_reg;
+	const struct bpf_reg_state *dreg =
+		cur_regs(env) + meta->insn.dst_reg;
+
+	meta->umin_src = min(meta->umin_src, sreg->umin_value);
+	meta->umax_src = max(meta->umax_src, sreg->umax_value);
+	meta->umin_dst = min(meta->umin_dst, dreg->umin_value);
+	meta->umax_dst = max(meta->umax_dst, dreg->umax_value);
+
+	/* NFP supports u16 and u32 multiplication.
+	 *
+	 * For ALU64, if either operand is beyond u32's value range, we reject
+	 * it. One thing to note, if the source operand is BPF_K, then we need
+	 * to check "imm" field directly, and we'd reject it if it is negative.
+	 * Because for ALU64, "imm" (with s32 type) is expected to be sign
+	 * extended to s64 which NFP mul doesn't support.
+	 *
+	 * For ALU32, it is fine for "imm" be negative though, because the
+	 * result is 32-bits and there is no difference on the low halve of
+	 * the result for signed/unsigned mul, so we will get correct result.
+	 */
+	if (is_mbpf_mul(meta)) {
+		if (meta->umax_dst > U32_MAX) {
+			pr_vlog(env, "multiplier is not within u32 value range\n");
+			return -EINVAL;
+		}
+		if (mbpf_src(meta) == BPF_X && meta->umax_src > U32_MAX) {
+			pr_vlog(env, "multiplicand is not within u32 value range\n");
+			return -EINVAL;
+		}
+		if (mbpf_class(meta) == BPF_ALU64 &&
+		    mbpf_src(meta) == BPF_K && meta->insn.imm < 0) {
+			pr_vlog(env, "sign extended multiplicand won't be within u32 value range\n");
+			return -EINVAL;
+		}
+	}
+
+	return 0;
+}
+
+static int
 nfp_verify_insn(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx, int prev_insn_idx)
 {
 	struct nfp_prog *nfp_prog = env->prog->aux->offload->dev_priv;
@@ -551,17 +596,8 @@ nfp_verify_insn(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx, int prev_insn_idx)
 	if (is_mbpf_xadd(meta))
 		return nfp_bpf_check_xadd(nfp_prog, meta, env);
 
-	if (is_mbpf_alu(meta)) {
-		const struct bpf_reg_state *sreg =
-			cur_regs(env) + meta->insn.src_reg;
-		const struct bpf_reg_state *dreg =
-			cur_regs(env) + meta->insn.dst_reg;
-
-		meta->umin_src = min(meta->umin_src, sreg->umin_value);
-		meta->umax_src = max(meta->umax_src, sreg->umax_value);
-		meta->umin_dst = min(meta->umin_dst, dreg->umin_value);
-		meta->umax_dst = max(meta->umax_dst, dreg->umax_value);
-	}
+	if (is_mbpf_alu(meta))
+		return nfp_bpf_check_alu(nfp_prog, meta, env);
 
 	return 0;
 }