From 9ce33e337facc678a9578f256752e39643dedf21 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jiong Wang Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 23:25:17 +0100 Subject: tools: bpf: sync uapi header bpf.h Sync new bpf prog load flag "BPF_F_TEST_RND_HI32" to tools/. Signed-off-by: Jiong Wang Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov --- tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+) (limited to 'tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h') diff --git a/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h index 68d4470523a0..7c6aef253173 100644 --- a/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h +++ b/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h @@ -260,6 +260,24 @@ enum bpf_attach_type { */ #define BPF_F_ANY_ALIGNMENT (1U << 1) +/* BPF_F_TEST_RND_HI32 is used in BPF_PROG_LOAD command for testing purpose. + * Verifier does sub-register def/use analysis and identifies instructions whose + * def only matters for low 32-bit, high 32-bit is never referenced later + * through implicit zero extension. Therefore verifier notifies JIT back-ends + * that it is safe to ignore clearing high 32-bit for these instructions. This + * saves some back-ends a lot of code-gen. However such optimization is not + * necessary on some arches, for example x86_64, arm64 etc, whose JIT back-ends + * hence hasn't used verifier's analysis result. But, we really want to have a + * way to be able to verify the correctness of the described optimization on + * x86_64 on which testsuites are frequently exercised. + * + * So, this flag is introduced. Once it is set, verifier will randomize high + * 32-bit for those instructions who has been identified as safe to ignore them. + * Then, if verifier is not doing correct analysis, such randomization will + * regress tests to expose bugs. + */ +#define BPF_F_TEST_RND_HI32 (1U << 2) + /* When BPF ldimm64's insn[0].src_reg != 0 then this can have * two extensions: * -- cgit v1.2.3-55-g7522