In the Jump instructions section it explains that the offset is
"relative to the instruction following the jump instruction".
But the program-local section confusingly said "referenced by
offset from the call instruction, similar to JA".
This patch updates that sentence with consistent wording, saying
it's relative to the instruction following the call instruction.
Signed-off-by: Dave Thaler <dthaler1968@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240525153332.21355-1-dthaler1968@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
imm is defined as a 32-bit signed integer.
{MOV, K, ALU64} says it does "dst = src" (where src is 'imm') and it
does do dst = (s64)imm, which in that sense does sign extend imm. The MOVSX
instruction is explained as sign extending, so added the example of
{MOV, K, ALU64} to make this more clear.
{JLE, K, JMP} says it does "PC += offset if dst <= src" (where src is 'imm',
and the comparison is unsigned). This was apparently ambiguous to some
readers as to whether the comparison was "dst <= (u64)(u32)imm" or
"dst <= (u64)(s64)imm" so added an example to make this more clear.
v1 -> v2: Address comments from Yonghong
Signed-off-by: Dave Thaler <dthaler1968@googlemail.com>
Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Acked-by: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240520215255.10595-1-dthaler1968@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Per IETF convention and discussion at LSF/MM/BPF, use MUST etc.
keywords as requested by IETF Area Director review. Also as
requested, indicate that documenting BTF is out of scope of this
document and will be covered by a separate IETF specification.
Added paragraph about the terminology that is required IETF boilerplate
and must be worded exactly as such.
Signed-off-by: Dave Thaler <dthaler1968@googlemail.com>
Acked-by: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240517165855.4688-1-dthaler1968@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
As discussed at LSF/MM/BPF, the sentence about using R0 for returning
values from calls is part of the calling convention and belongs in
abi.rst. Any further additions or clarifications to this text are left
for future patches on abi.rst. The current patch is simply to unblock
progression of instruction-set.rst to a standard.
In contrast, the restriction of register numbers to the range 0-10
is untouched, left in the instruction-set.rst definition of the
src_reg and dst_reg fields.
Signed-off-by: Dave Thaler <dthaler1968@googlemail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240517153445.3914-1-dthaler1968@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
An ALU instruction's source operand can be the value in the source
register or the 32-bit immediate value encoded in the instruction. This
is controlled by the 's' bit of the 'opcode'.
The current description explicitly uses the phrase 'value of the source
register' when defining the meaning of 'src'.
Change the description to use 'source operand' in place of 'value of the
source register'.
Signed-off-by: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Dave Thaler <dthaler1968@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240514130303.113607-1-puranjay@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
In preparation for publication as an IETF RFC, the WG chairs asked me
to convert the document to use IETF packet format for field layout, so
this patch attempts to make it consistent with other IETF documents.
Some fields that are not byte aligned were previously inconsistent
in how values were defined. Some were defined as the value of the
byte containing the field (like 0x20 for a field holding the high
four bits of the byte), and others were defined as the value of the
field itself (like 0x2). This PR makes them be consistent in using
just the values of the field itself, which is IETF convention.
As a result, some of the defines that used BPF_* would no longer
match the value in the spec, and so this patch also drops the BPF_*
prefix to avoid confusion with the defines that are the full-byte
equivalent values. For consistency, BPF_* is then dropped from
other fields too. BPF_<foo> is thus the Linux implementation-specific
define for <foo> as it appears in the BPF ISA specification.
The syntax BPF_ADD | BPF_X | BPF_ALU only worked for full-byte
values so the convention {ADD, X, ALU} is proposed for referring
to field values instead.
Also replace the redundant "LSB bits" with "least significant bits".
A preview of what the resulting Internet Draft would look like can
be seen at:
https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dthaler/ebp
f-docs-1/format/draft-ietf-bpf-isa.html
v1->v2: Fix sphinx issue as recommended by David Vernet
Signed-off-by: Dave Thaler <dthaler1968@gmail.com>
Acked-by: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240301222337.15931-1-dthaler1968@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
* "BPF ADD" should be "BPF_ADD".
* "src" should be "src_reg" in several places. The latter is the field name
in the instruction. The former refers to the value of the register, or the
immediate.
* Add '' around field names in one sentence, for consistency with the rest
of the document.
Signed-off-by: Dave Thaler <dthaler1968@gmail.com>
Acked-by: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240221173535.16601-1-dthaler1968@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
This patch attempts to update the ISA specification according
to the latest mailing list discussion about conformance groups,
in a way that is intended to be consistent with IANA registry
processes and IETF 118 WG meeting discussion.
It does the following:
* Split basic into base32 and base64 for 32-bit vs 64-bit base
instructions
* Split division/multiplication/modulo instructions out of base groups
* Split atomic instructions out of base groups
There may be additional changes as discussion continues,
but there seems to be consensus on the principles above.
v1->v2: fixed typo pointed out by David Vernet
v2->v3: Moved multiplication to same groups as division/modulo
Signed-off-by: Dave Thaler <dthaler1968@gmail.com>
Acked-by: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240202221110.3872-1-dthaler1968@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
For 64-bit immediate instruction, 'BPF_IMM | BPF_DW | BPF_LD' and
src_reg=[0-6], the current documentation describes the 64-bit
immediate is constructed by:
imm64 = (next_imm << 32) | imm
But actually imm64 is only used when src_reg=0. For all other
variants (src_reg != 0), 'imm' and 'next_imm' have separate special
encoding requirement and imm64 cannot be easily used to describe
instruction semantics.
This patch clarifies that 64-bit immediate instructions use
two 32-bit immediate values instead of a 64-bit immediate value,
so later describing individual 64-bit immediate instructions
becomes less confusing.
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Dave Thaler <dthaler1968@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240127194629.737589-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev
