Skip to contentSkip to conversation

Patch "bpf, arm32: fix inconsistent naming about emit_a32_lsr_{r64, i64}" has been added to the 4.17-stable tree

PATCH gregkh at linuxfoundation.org 1 participant 1 message Jul 28, 2018

Subsystems (3)
Arm (32-bit) BPF BPF JIT for Arm
lore
Share & tools
lore

gregkh at linuxfoundation.org

author Applied
#0 lore raw

This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled

    bpf, arm32: fix inconsistent naming about emit_a32_lsr_{r64,i64}

to the 4.17-stable tree which can be found at:
http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary

The filename of the patch is:

     bpf-arm32-fix-inconsistent-naming-about-emit_a32_lsr_-r64-i64.patch

and it can be found in the queue-4.17 subdirectory.

If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree, please let <[email protected]> know about it.

Quoted 1 line

From foo at baz Sat Jul 28 10:14:30 CEST 2018

From: Wang YanQing <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 10:52:17 +0800
Subject: bpf, arm32: fix inconsistent naming about emit_a32_lsr_{r64,i64}

From: Wang YanQing <[email protected]>

[ Upstream commit 68565a1af9f7012e6f2fe2bdd612f67d2d830c28 ]

The names for BPF_ALU64 | BPF_ARSH are emit_a32_arsh_*,
the names for BPF_ALU64 | BPF_LSH are emit_a32_lsh_*, but
the names for BPF_ALU64 | BPF_RSH are emit_a32_lsr_*.

For consistence reason, let's rename emit_a32_lsr_* to emit_a32_rsh_*.

This patch also corrects a wrong comment.

Fixes 39c13c204bb1 ("arm: eBPF JIT compiler")
Signed-off-by Wang YanQing <[email protected]>
Cc Shubham Bansal <[email protected]>
Cc linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
Cc linux at armlinux.org.uk
Signed-off-by Daniel Borkmann <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
---
 arch/arm/net/bpf_jit_32.c |   10 +++++-----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
arch/arm/net/bpf_jit_32.c +5 -5
@@ -708,7 +708,7 @@ static inline void emit_a32_arsh_r64(con
 }
 
 /* dst = dst >> src */
-static inline void emit_a32_lsr_r64(const u8 dst[], const u8 src[], bool dstk,
+static inline void emit_a32_rsh_r64(const u8 dst[], const u8 src[], bool dstk,
 				     bool sstk, struct jit_ctx *ctx) {
 	const u8 *tmp = bpf2a32[TMP_REG_1];
 	const u8 *tmp2 = bpf2a32[TMP_REG_2];

@@ -724,7 +724,7 @@ static inline void emit_a32_lsr_r64(cons
 		emit(ARM_LDR_I(rm, ARM_SP, STACK_VAR(dst_hi)), ctx);
 	}
 
-	/* Do LSH operation */
+	/* Do RSH operation */
 	emit(ARM_RSB_I(ARM_IP, rt, 32), ctx);
 	emit(ARM_SUBS_I(tmp2[0], rt, 32), ctx);
 	emit(ARM_MOV_SR(ARM_LR, rd, SRTYPE_LSR, rt), ctx);

@@ -774,7 +774,7 @@ static inline void emit_a32_lsh_i64(cons
 }
 
 /* dst = dst >> val */
-static inline void emit_a32_lsr_i64(const u8 dst[], bool dstk,
+static inline void emit_a32_rsh_i64(const u8 dst[], bool dstk,
 				    const u32 val, struct jit_ctx *ctx) {
 	const u8 *tmp = bpf2a32[TMP_REG_1];
 	const u8 *tmp2 = bpf2a32[TMP_REG_2];

@@ -1330,7 +1330,7 @@ static int build_insn(const struct bpf_i
 	case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_RSH | BPF_K:
 		if (unlikely(imm > 63))
 			return -EINVAL;
-		emit_a32_lsr_i64(dst, dstk, imm, ctx);
+		emit_a32_rsh_i64(dst, dstk, imm, ctx);
 		break;
 	/* dst = dst << src */
 	case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_LSH | BPF_X:

@@ -1338,7 +1338,7 @@ static int build_insn(const struct bpf_i
 		break;
 	/* dst = dst >> src */
 	case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_RSH | BPF_X:
-		emit_a32_lsr_r64(dst, src, dstk, sstk, ctx);
+		emit_a32_rsh_r64(dst, src, dstk, sstk, ctx);
 		break;
 	/* dst = dst >> src (signed) */
 	case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_ARSH | BPF_X:

Patches currently in stable-queue which might be from udknight at gmail.com are

queue-4.17/bpf-arm32-fix-inconsistent-naming-about-emit_a32_lsr_-r64-i64.patch