bpf: Rename BPF_XADD and prepare to encode other atomics in .imm

A subsequent patch will add additional atomic operations. These new
operations will use the same opcode field as the existing XADD, with
the immediate discriminating different operations.

In preparation, rename the instruction mode BPF_ATOMIC and start
calling the zero immediate BPF_ADD.

This is possible (doesn't break existing valid BPF progs) because the
immediate field is currently reserved MBZ and BPF_ADD is zero.

All uses are removed from the tree but the BPF_XADD definition is
kept around to avoid breaking builds for people including kernel
headers.

Signed-off-by: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210114181751.768687-5-jackmanb@google.com

1 files changed, 14 insertions, 10 deletions

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index ae2aee48cf82..cfc137b81ac6 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -3604,13 +3604,17 @@ static int check_mem_access(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx, u32 regn
 	return err;
 }
 
-static int check_xadd(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx, struct bpf_insn *insn)
+static int check_atomic(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx, struct bpf_insn *insn)
 {
 	int err;
 
-	if ((BPF_SIZE(insn->code) != BPF_W && BPF_SIZE(insn->code) != BPF_DW) ||
-	    insn->imm != 0) {
-		verbose(env, "BPF_XADD uses reserved fields\n");
+	if (insn->imm != BPF_ADD) {
+		verbose(env, "BPF_ATOMIC uses invalid atomic opcode %02x\n", insn->imm);
+		return -EINVAL;
+	}
+
+	if (BPF_SIZE(insn->code) != BPF_W && BPF_SIZE(insn->code) != BPF_DW) {
+		verbose(env, "invalid atomic operand size\n");
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}
 
@@ -3633,19 +3637,19 @@ static int check_xadd(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx, struct bpf_ins
 	    is_pkt_reg(env, insn->dst_reg) ||
 	    is_flow_key_reg(env, insn->dst_reg) ||
 	    is_sk_reg(env, insn->dst_reg)) {
-		verbose(env, "BPF_XADD stores into R%d %s is not allowed\n",
+		verbose(env, "BPF_ATOMIC stores into R%d %s is not allowed\n",
 			insn->dst_reg,
 			reg_type_str[reg_state(env, insn->dst_reg)->type]);
 		return -EACCES;
 	}
 
-	/* check whether atomic_add can read the memory */
+	/* check whether we can read the memory */
 	err = check_mem_access(env, insn_idx, insn->dst_reg, insn->off,
 			       BPF_SIZE(insn->code), BPF_READ, -1, true);
 	if (err)
 		return err;
 
-	/* check whether atomic_add can write into the same memory */
+	/* check whether we can write into the same memory */
 	return check_mem_access(env, insn_idx, insn->dst_reg, insn->off,
 				BPF_SIZE(insn->code), BPF_WRITE, -1, true);
 }
@@ -9524,8 +9528,8 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
 		} else if (class == BPF_STX) {
 			enum bpf_reg_type *prev_dst_type, dst_reg_type;
 
-			if (BPF_MODE(insn->code) == BPF_XADD) {
-				err = check_xadd(env, env->insn_idx, insn);
+			if (BPF_MODE(insn->code) == BPF_ATOMIC) {
+				err = check_atomic(env, env->insn_idx, insn);
 				if (err)
 					return err;
 				env->insn_idx++;
@@ -10010,7 +10014,7 @@ static int resolve_pseudo_ldimm64(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
 
 		if (BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_STX &&
 		    ((BPF_MODE(insn->code) != BPF_MEM &&
-		      BPF_MODE(insn->code) != BPF_XADD) || insn->imm != 0)) {
+		      BPF_MODE(insn->code) != BPF_ATOMIC) || insn->imm != 0)) {
 			verbose(env, "BPF_STX uses reserved fields\n");
 			return -EINVAL;
 		}