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
Clarify definitions of several instructions:
* BPF_NEG does not support BPF_X
* BPF_CALL does not support BPF_JMP32 or BPF_X
* BPF_EXIT does not support BPF_X
* BPF_JA does not support BPF_X (was implied but not explicitly stated)
Also fix a typo in the wide instruction figure where the field is
actually named "opcode" not "code".
Signed-off-by: Dave Thaler <dthaler1968@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240126040050.8464-1-dthaler1968@gmail.com
As specified in the IETF BPF charter, the BPF working group has plans to
add one or more informational documents that recommend conventions and
guidelines for producing portable BPF program binaries. The
instruction-set.rst document currently contains a "Registers and calling
convention" subsection which dictates a calling convention that belongs
in an ABI document, rather than an instruction set document. Let's move
it to a new abi.rst document so we can clean it up. The abi.rst document
will of course be significantly changed and expanded upon over time. For
now, it's really just a placeholder which will contain ABI-specific
language that doesn't belong in other documents.
Signed-off-by: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20230828155948.123405-3-void@manifault.com
In commit 4d496be9ca ("bpf,docs: Create new standardization
subdirectory"), I added a standardization/ directory to the BPF
documentation, which will contain the docs that will be standardized
as part of the effort with the IETF.
I included linux-notes.rst in that directory, but I shouldn't have. It
doesn't contain anything that will be standardized. Let's move it back
to Documentation/bpf.
Signed-off-by: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20230828155948.123405-2-void@manifault.com
The BPF standardization effort is actively underway with the IETF. As
described in the BPF Working Group (WG) charter in [0], there are a
number of proposed documents, some informational and some proposed
standards, that will be drafted as part of the standardization effort.
[0]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/bpf/about/
Though the specific documents that will formally be standardized will
exist as Internet Drafts (I-D) and WG documents in the BPF WG
datatracker page, the source of truth from where those documents will be
generated will reside in the kernel documentation tree (originating in
the bpf-next tree).
Because these documents will be used to generate the I-D and WG
documents which will be standardized with the IETF, they are a bit
special as far as kernel-tree documentation goes:
- They will be dual licensed with LGPL-2.1 OR BSD-2-Clause
- IETF I-D and WG documents (the documents which will actually be
standardized) will be auto-generated from these documents.
In order to keep things clearly organized in the BPF documentation tree,
and to make it abundantly clear where standards-related documentation
needs to go, we should move standards-relevant documents into a separate
standardization/ subdirectory.
Signed-off-by: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230710183027.15132-1-void@manifault.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
