2022-09-27 11:59:48 -07:00
|
|
|
.. contents::
|
|
|
|
.. sectnum::
|
|
|
|
|
2024-02-08 15:14:49 -07:00
|
|
|
======================================
|
|
|
|
BPF Instruction Set Architecture (ISA)
|
|
|
|
======================================
|
2022-09-27 11:59:48 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2024-04-22 12:09:42 -07:00
|
|
|
eBPF (which is no longer an acronym for anything), also commonly
|
|
|
|
referred to as BPF, is a technology with origins in the Linux kernel
|
|
|
|
that can run untrusted programs in a privileged context such as an
|
|
|
|
operating system kernel. This document specifies the BPF instruction
|
|
|
|
set architecture (ISA).
|
2021-11-19 09:32:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2023-01-26 18:47:06 -07:00
|
|
|
Documentation conventions
|
|
|
|
=========================
|
|
|
|
|
2024-05-17 09:58:55 -07:00
|
|
|
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
|
|
|
|
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
|
|
|
|
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
|
|
|
|
BCP 14 `<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>`_
|
|
|
|
`RFC8174 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>`_
|
|
|
|
when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
|
|
|
|
|
2023-08-07 07:06:48 -07:00
|
|
|
For brevity and consistency, this document refers to families
|
|
|
|
of types using a shorthand syntax and refers to several expository,
|
|
|
|
mnemonic functions when describing the semantics of instructions.
|
|
|
|
The range of valid values for those types and the semantics of those
|
|
|
|
functions are defined in the following subsections.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Types
|
|
|
|
-----
|
|
|
|
This document refers to integer types with the notation `SN` to specify
|
|
|
|
a type's signedness (`S`) and bit width (`N`), respectively.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. table:: Meaning of signedness notation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==== =========
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
S Meaning
|
2023-08-07 07:06:48 -07:00
|
|
|
==== =========
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
u unsigned
|
|
|
|
s signed
|
2023-08-07 07:06:48 -07:00
|
|
|
==== =========
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. table:: Meaning of bit-width notation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
===== =========
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
N Bit width
|
2023-08-07 07:06:48 -07:00
|
|
|
===== =========
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
8 8 bits
|
|
|
|
16 16 bits
|
|
|
|
32 32 bits
|
|
|
|
64 64 bits
|
|
|
|
128 128 bits
|
2023-08-07 07:06:48 -07:00
|
|
|
===== =========
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For example, `u32` is a type whose valid values are all the 32-bit unsigned
|
2024-04-05 08:52:45 -07:00
|
|
|
numbers and `s16` is a type whose valid values are all the 16-bit signed
|
2023-08-07 07:06:48 -07:00
|
|
|
numbers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Functions
|
|
|
|
---------
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
* htobe16: Takes an unsigned 16-bit number in host-endian format and
|
2023-08-07 07:06:48 -07:00
|
|
|
returns the equivalent number as an unsigned 16-bit number in big-endian
|
|
|
|
format.
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
* htobe32: Takes an unsigned 32-bit number in host-endian format and
|
2023-08-07 07:06:48 -07:00
|
|
|
returns the equivalent number as an unsigned 32-bit number in big-endian
|
|
|
|
format.
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
* htobe64: Takes an unsigned 64-bit number in host-endian format and
|
2023-08-07 07:06:48 -07:00
|
|
|
returns the equivalent number as an unsigned 64-bit number in big-endian
|
|
|
|
format.
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
* htole16: Takes an unsigned 16-bit number in host-endian format and
|
2023-08-07 07:06:48 -07:00
|
|
|
returns the equivalent number as an unsigned 16-bit number in little-endian
|
|
|
|
format.
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
* htole32: Takes an unsigned 32-bit number in host-endian format and
|
2023-08-07 07:06:48 -07:00
|
|
|
returns the equivalent number as an unsigned 32-bit number in little-endian
|
|
|
|
format.
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
* htole64: Takes an unsigned 64-bit number in host-endian format and
|
2023-08-07 07:06:48 -07:00
|
|
|
returns the equivalent number as an unsigned 64-bit number in little-endian
|
|
|
|
format.
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
* bswap16: Takes an unsigned 16-bit number in either big- or little-endian
|
2023-08-07 07:06:48 -07:00
|
|
|
format and returns the equivalent number with the same bit width but
|
|
|
|
opposite endianness.
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
* bswap32: Takes an unsigned 32-bit number in either big- or little-endian
|
2023-08-07 07:06:48 -07:00
|
|
|
format and returns the equivalent number with the same bit width but
|
|
|
|
opposite endianness.
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
* bswap64: Takes an unsigned 64-bit number in either big- or little-endian
|
2023-08-07 07:06:48 -07:00
|
|
|
format and returns the equivalent number with the same bit width but
|
|
|
|
opposite endianness.
|
2021-11-19 09:32:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2023-08-08 14:25:01 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Definitions
|
|
|
|
-----------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. glossary::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sign Extend
|
|
|
|
To `sign extend an` ``X`` `-bit number, A, to a` ``Y`` `-bit number, B ,` means to
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#. Copy all ``X`` bits from `A` to the lower ``X`` bits of `B`.
|
|
|
|
#. Set the value of the remaining ``Y`` - ``X`` bits of `B` to the value of
|
|
|
|
the most-significant bit of `A`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. admonition:: Example
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sign extend an 8-bit number ``A`` to a 16-bit number ``B`` on a big-endian platform:
|
|
|
|
::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A: 10000110
|
|
|
|
B: 11111111 10000110
|
|
|
|
|
2024-01-08 14:42:31 -07:00
|
|
|
Conformance groups
|
|
|
|
------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An implementation does not need to support all instructions specified in this
|
|
|
|
document (e.g., deprecated instructions). Instead, a number of conformance
|
2024-05-17 09:58:55 -07:00
|
|
|
groups are specified. An implementation MUST support the base32 conformance
|
|
|
|
group and MAY support additional conformance groups, where supporting a
|
|
|
|
conformance group means it MUST support all instructions in that conformance
|
2024-01-08 14:42:31 -07:00
|
|
|
group.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The use of named conformance groups enables interoperability between a runtime
|
2024-04-05 08:52:45 -07:00
|
|
|
that executes instructions, and tools such as compilers that generate
|
2024-01-08 14:42:31 -07:00
|
|
|
instructions for the runtime. Thus, capability discovery in terms of
|
|
|
|
conformance groups might be done manually by users or automatically by tools.
|
|
|
|
|
2024-02-02 15:11:10 -07:00
|
|
|
Each conformance group has a short ASCII label (e.g., "base32") that
|
2024-01-08 14:42:31 -07:00
|
|
|
corresponds to a set of instructions that are mandatory. That is, each
|
|
|
|
instruction has one or more conformance groups of which it is a member.
|
|
|
|
|
2024-02-02 15:11:10 -07:00
|
|
|
This document defines the following conformance groups:
|
2024-02-05 21:51:46 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2024-02-02 15:11:10 -07:00
|
|
|
* base32: includes all instructions defined in this
|
|
|
|
specification unless otherwise noted.
|
|
|
|
* base64: includes base32, plus instructions explicitly noted
|
|
|
|
as being in the base64 conformance group.
|
|
|
|
* atomic32: includes 32-bit atomic operation instructions (see `Atomic operations`_).
|
|
|
|
* atomic64: includes atomic32, plus 64-bit atomic operation instructions.
|
|
|
|
* divmul32: includes 32-bit division, multiplication, and modulo instructions.
|
|
|
|
* divmul64: includes divmul32, plus 64-bit division, multiplication,
|
|
|
|
and modulo instructions.
|
2024-03-01 18:22:29 -07:00
|
|
|
* packet: deprecated packet access instructions.
|
2024-01-08 14:42:31 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2022-01-03 11:35:51 -07:00
|
|
|
Instruction encoding
|
|
|
|
====================
|
|
|
|
|
2023-08-28 08:59:48 -07:00
|
|
|
BPF has two instruction encodings:
|
2022-01-31 11:36:37 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2022-09-27 11:59:48 -07:00
|
|
|
* the basic instruction encoding, which uses 64 bits to encode an instruction
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
* the wide instruction encoding, which appends a second 64 bits
|
|
|
|
after the basic instruction for a total of 128 bits.
|
2022-01-31 11:36:37 -07:00
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
Basic instruction encoding
|
|
|
|
--------------------------
|
2022-01-03 11:35:51 -07:00
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
A basic instruction is encoded as follows::
|
2023-01-27 15:45:55 -07:00
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
|
|
|
| opcode | regs | offset |
|
|
|
|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
|
|
|
| imm |
|
|
|
|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
2023-01-27 15:45:55 -07:00
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
**opcode**
|
|
|
|
operation to perform, encoded as follows::
|
2023-01-27 15:45:55 -07:00
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
|
|
|
|specific |class|
|
|
|
|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
2023-01-27 15:45:55 -07:00
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
**specific**
|
|
|
|
The format of these bits varies by instruction class
|
2023-01-27 15:45:55 -07:00
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
**class**
|
|
|
|
The instruction class (see `Instruction classes`_)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**regs**
|
|
|
|
The source and destination register numbers, encoded as follows
|
|
|
|
on a little-endian host::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
|
|
|
|src_reg|dst_reg|
|
|
|
|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and as follows on a big-endian host::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
|
|
|
|dst_reg|src_reg|
|
|
|
|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**src_reg**
|
|
|
|
the source register number (0-10), except where otherwise specified
|
|
|
|
(`64-bit immediate instructions`_ reuse this field for other purposes)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**dst_reg**
|
2024-04-05 08:52:45 -07:00
|
|
|
destination register number (0-10), unless otherwise specified
|
|
|
|
(future instructions might reuse this field for other purposes)
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**offset**
|
2024-04-05 08:52:45 -07:00
|
|
|
signed integer offset used with pointer arithmetic, except where
|
|
|
|
otherwise specified (some arithmetic instructions reuse this field
|
|
|
|
for other purposes)
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**imm**
|
|
|
|
signed integer immediate value
|
2022-01-03 11:35:51 -07:00
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
Note that the contents of multi-byte fields ('offset' and 'imm') are
|
|
|
|
stored using big-endian byte ordering on big-endian hosts and
|
|
|
|
little-endian byte ordering on little-endian hosts.
|
2023-02-20 15:37:42 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2023-02-28 02:51:29 -07:00
|
|
|
For example::
|
2023-02-20 15:37:42 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2023-02-28 02:51:29 -07:00
|
|
|
opcode offset imm assembly
|
|
|
|
src_reg dst_reg
|
|
|
|
07 0 1 00 00 44 33 22 11 r1 += 0x11223344 // little
|
|
|
|
dst_reg src_reg
|
|
|
|
07 1 0 00 00 11 22 33 44 r1 += 0x11223344 // big
|
2023-02-20 15:37:42 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2022-01-03 11:35:51 -07:00
|
|
|
Note that most instructions do not use all of the fields.
|
2024-05-17 09:58:55 -07:00
|
|
|
Unused fields SHALL be cleared to zero.
|
2022-01-03 11:35:51 -07:00
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
Wide instruction encoding
|
|
|
|
--------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some instructions are defined to use the wide instruction encoding,
|
|
|
|
which uses two 32-bit immediate values. The 64 bits following
|
|
|
|
the basic instruction format contain a pseudo instruction
|
|
|
|
with 'opcode', 'dst_reg', 'src_reg', and 'offset' all set to zero.
|
2023-01-27 15:45:55 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2023-02-28 02:51:29 -07:00
|
|
|
This is depicted in the following figure::
|
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
|
|
|
| opcode | regs | offset |
|
|
|
|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
|
|
|
| imm |
|
|
|
|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
|
|
|
| reserved |
|
|
|
|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
|
|
|
| next_imm |
|
|
|
|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**opcode**
|
|
|
|
operation to perform, encoded as explained above
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**regs**
|
2024-04-05 08:52:45 -07:00
|
|
|
The source and destination register numbers (unless otherwise
|
|
|
|
specified), encoded as explained above
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**offset**
|
2024-04-05 08:52:45 -07:00
|
|
|
signed integer offset used with pointer arithmetic, unless
|
|
|
|
otherwise specified
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**imm**
|
|
|
|
signed integer immediate value
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**reserved**
|
|
|
|
unused, set to zero
|
2023-01-27 15:45:55 -07:00
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
**next_imm**
|
|
|
|
second signed integer immediate value
|
2023-01-27 15:45:55 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2021-12-23 03:19:05 -07:00
|
|
|
Instruction classes
|
2022-01-03 11:35:51 -07:00
|
|
|
-------------------
|
2021-11-19 09:32:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
The three least significant bits of the 'opcode' field store the instruction class:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
===== ===== =============================== ===================================
|
|
|
|
class value description reference
|
|
|
|
===== ===== =============================== ===================================
|
|
|
|
LD 0x0 non-standard load operations `Load and store instructions`_
|
|
|
|
LDX 0x1 load into register operations `Load and store instructions`_
|
|
|
|
ST 0x2 store from immediate operations `Load and store instructions`_
|
|
|
|
STX 0x3 store from register operations `Load and store instructions`_
|
|
|
|
ALU 0x4 32-bit arithmetic operations `Arithmetic and jump instructions`_
|
|
|
|
JMP 0x5 64-bit jump operations `Arithmetic and jump instructions`_
|
|
|
|
JMP32 0x6 32-bit jump operations `Arithmetic and jump instructions`_
|
|
|
|
ALU64 0x7 64-bit arithmetic operations `Arithmetic and jump instructions`_
|
|
|
|
===== ===== =============================== ===================================
|
2021-11-19 09:32:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2021-12-23 03:19:05 -07:00
|
|
|
Arithmetic and jump instructions
|
|
|
|
================================
|
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
For arithmetic and jump instructions (``ALU``, ``ALU64``, ``JMP`` and
|
|
|
|
``JMP32``), the 8-bit 'opcode' field is divided into three parts::
|
2021-11-19 09:32:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
|
|
|
| code |s|class|
|
|
|
|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
2021-11-19 09:32:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2023-01-27 15:45:55 -07:00
|
|
|
**code**
|
|
|
|
the operation code, whose meaning varies by instruction class
|
2021-11-19 09:32:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
**s (source)**
|
2023-01-27 15:45:55 -07:00
|
|
|
the source operand location, which unless otherwise specified is one of:
|
2021-11-19 09:32:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2023-01-27 15:45:55 -07:00
|
|
|
====== ===== ==============================================
|
|
|
|
source value description
|
|
|
|
====== ===== ==============================================
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
K 0 use 32-bit 'imm' value as source operand
|
|
|
|
X 1 use 'src_reg' register value as source operand
|
2023-01-27 15:45:55 -07:00
|
|
|
====== ===== ==============================================
|
2021-11-19 09:32:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2023-01-27 15:45:55 -07:00
|
|
|
**instruction class**
|
|
|
|
the instruction class (see `Instruction classes`_)
|
2022-01-03 11:35:52 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arithmetic instructions
|
|
|
|
-----------------------
|
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
``ALU`` uses 32-bit wide operands while ``ALU64`` uses 64-bit wide operands for
|
|
|
|
otherwise identical operations. ``ALU64`` instructions belong to the
|
2024-02-02 15:11:10 -07:00
|
|
|
base64 conformance group unless noted otherwise.
|
2024-05-14 06:03:03 -07:00
|
|
|
The 'code' field encodes the operation as below, where 'src' refers to the
|
|
|
|
the source operand and 'dst' refers to the value of the destination
|
|
|
|
register.
|
2022-09-27 11:59:48 -07:00
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
===== ===== ======= ==========================================================
|
|
|
|
name code offset description
|
|
|
|
===== ===== ======= ==========================================================
|
|
|
|
ADD 0x0 0 dst += src
|
|
|
|
SUB 0x1 0 dst -= src
|
|
|
|
MUL 0x2 0 dst \*= src
|
|
|
|
DIV 0x3 0 dst = (src != 0) ? (dst / src) : 0
|
|
|
|
SDIV 0x3 1 dst = (src != 0) ? (dst s/ src) : 0
|
|
|
|
OR 0x4 0 dst \|= src
|
|
|
|
AND 0x5 0 dst &= src
|
|
|
|
LSH 0x6 0 dst <<= (src & mask)
|
|
|
|
RSH 0x7 0 dst >>= (src & mask)
|
|
|
|
NEG 0x8 0 dst = -dst
|
|
|
|
MOD 0x9 0 dst = (src != 0) ? (dst % src) : dst
|
|
|
|
SMOD 0x9 1 dst = (src != 0) ? (dst s% src) : dst
|
|
|
|
XOR 0xa 0 dst ^= src
|
|
|
|
MOV 0xb 0 dst = src
|
|
|
|
MOVSX 0xb 8/16/32 dst = (s8,s16,s32)src
|
|
|
|
ARSH 0xc 0 :term:`sign extending<Sign Extend>` dst >>= (src & mask)
|
|
|
|
END 0xd 0 byte swap operations (see `Byte swap instructions`_ below)
|
|
|
|
===== ===== ======= ==========================================================
|
2022-09-27 11:59:48 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2023-01-23 17:12:18 -07:00
|
|
|
Underflow and overflow are allowed during arithmetic operations, meaning
|
2023-08-28 08:59:48 -07:00
|
|
|
the 64-bit or 32-bit value will wrap. If BPF program execution would
|
2023-01-23 17:12:18 -07:00
|
|
|
result in division by zero, the destination register is instead set to zero.
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
If execution would result in modulo by zero, for ``ALU64`` the value of
|
|
|
|
the destination register is unchanged whereas for ``ALU`` the upper
|
2023-01-23 17:12:18 -07:00
|
|
|
32 bits of the destination register are zeroed.
|
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
``{ADD, X, ALU}``, where 'code' = ``ADD``, 'source' = ``X``, and 'class' = ``ALU``, means::
|
2022-01-03 11:35:52 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2023-01-27 15:45:55 -07:00
|
|
|
dst = (u32) ((u32) dst + (u32) src)
|
2022-01-03 11:35:52 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2023-01-26 18:47:06 -07:00
|
|
|
where '(u32)' indicates that the upper 32 bits are zeroed.
|
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
``{ADD, X, ALU64}`` means::
|
2022-01-03 11:35:52 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2023-01-27 15:45:55 -07:00
|
|
|
dst = dst + src
|
2022-01-03 11:35:52 -07:00
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
``{XOR, K, ALU}`` means::
|
2022-01-03 11:35:52 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2024-02-05 21:51:46 -07:00
|
|
|
dst = (u32) dst ^ (u32) imm
|
2022-01-03 11:35:52 -07:00
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
``{XOR, K, ALU64}`` means::
|
2022-01-03 11:35:52 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2024-02-05 21:51:46 -07:00
|
|
|
dst = dst ^ imm
|
2022-01-03 11:35:52 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2024-04-05 08:52:45 -07:00
|
|
|
Note that most arithmetic instructions have 'offset' set to 0. Only three instructions
|
|
|
|
(``SDIV``, ``SMOD``, ``MOVSX``) have a non-zero 'offset'.
|
2023-07-27 18:13:42 -07:00
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
Division, multiplication, and modulo operations for ``ALU`` are part
|
2024-02-02 15:11:10 -07:00
|
|
|
of the "divmul32" conformance group, and division, multiplication, and
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
modulo operations for ``ALU64`` are part of the "divmul64" conformance
|
2024-02-02 15:11:10 -07:00
|
|
|
group.
|
2023-08-08 14:25:01 -07:00
|
|
|
The division and modulo operations support both unsigned and signed flavors.
|
2023-07-27 18:13:42 -07:00
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
For unsigned operations (``DIV`` and ``MOD``), for ``ALU``,
|
|
|
|
'imm' is interpreted as a 32-bit unsigned value. For ``ALU64``,
|
2023-08-08 14:25:01 -07:00
|
|
|
'imm' is first :term:`sign extended<Sign Extend>` from 32 to 64 bits, and then
|
|
|
|
interpreted as a 64-bit unsigned value.
|
2023-07-28 15:51:05 -07:00
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
For signed operations (``SDIV`` and ``SMOD``), for ``ALU``,
|
|
|
|
'imm' is interpreted as a 32-bit signed value. For ``ALU64``, 'imm'
|
2023-08-08 14:25:01 -07:00
|
|
|
is first :term:`sign extended<Sign Extend>` from 32 to 64 bits, and then
|
|
|
|
interpreted as a 64-bit signed value.
|
2023-07-28 15:51:05 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2023-10-17 13:30:20 -07:00
|
|
|
Note that there are varying definitions of the signed modulo operation
|
|
|
|
when the dividend or divisor are negative, where implementations often
|
|
|
|
vary by language such that Python, Ruby, etc. differ from C, Go, Java,
|
2024-05-17 09:58:55 -07:00
|
|
|
etc. This specification requires that signed modulo MUST use truncated division
|
2024-04-19 14:38:26 -07:00
|
|
|
(where -13 % 3 == -1) as implemented in C, Go, etc.::
|
2023-10-17 13:30:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a % n = a - n * trunc(a / n)
|
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
The ``MOVSX`` instruction does a move operation with sign extension.
|
2024-04-05 08:52:45 -07:00
|
|
|
``{MOVSX, X, ALU}`` :term:`sign extends<Sign Extend>` 8-bit and 16-bit operands into
|
|
|
|
32-bit operands, and zeroes the remaining upper 32 bits.
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
``{MOVSX, X, ALU64}`` :term:`sign extends<Sign Extend>` 8-bit, 16-bit, and 32-bit
|
2024-04-05 08:52:45 -07:00
|
|
|
operands into 64-bit operands. Unlike other arithmetic instructions,
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
``MOVSX`` is only defined for register source operands (``X``).
|
2022-01-03 11:35:52 -07:00
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: clarify sign extension of 64-bit use of 32-bit imm
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>
2024-05-20 14:52:55 -07:00
|
|
|
``{MOV, K, ALU64}`` means::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dst = (s64)imm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
``{MOV, X, ALU}`` means::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dst = (u32)src
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
``{MOVSX, X, ALU}`` with 'offset' 8 means::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dst = (u32)(s32)(s8)src
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
The ``NEG`` instruction is only defined when the source bit is clear
|
|
|
|
(``K``).
|
2024-01-25 21:00:50 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2023-05-09 11:08:45 -07:00
|
|
|
Shift operations use a mask of 0x3F (63) for 64-bit operations and 0x1F (31)
|
|
|
|
for 32-bit operations.
|
|
|
|
|
2022-01-31 11:36:34 -07:00
|
|
|
Byte swap instructions
|
2023-07-28 15:51:05 -07:00
|
|
|
----------------------
|
2022-01-31 11:36:34 -07:00
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
The byte swap instructions use instruction classes of ``ALU`` and ``ALU64``
|
|
|
|
and a 4-bit 'code' field of ``END``.
|
2022-01-31 11:36:34 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2022-04-28 02:55:52 -07:00
|
|
|
The byte swap instructions operate on the destination register
|
2022-01-31 11:36:34 -07:00
|
|
|
only and do not use a separate source register or immediate value.
|
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
For ``ALU``, the 1-bit source operand field in the opcode is used to
|
2023-07-28 15:51:05 -07:00
|
|
|
select what byte order the operation converts from or to. For
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
``ALU64``, the 1-bit source operand field in the opcode is reserved
|
2024-05-17 09:58:55 -07:00
|
|
|
and MUST be set to 0.
|
2022-01-31 11:36:34 -07:00
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
===== ======== ===== =================================================
|
|
|
|
class source value description
|
|
|
|
===== ======== ===== =================================================
|
|
|
|
ALU TO_LE 0 convert between host byte order and little endian
|
|
|
|
ALU TO_BE 1 convert between host byte order and big endian
|
|
|
|
ALU64 Reserved 0 do byte swap unconditionally
|
|
|
|
===== ======== ===== =================================================
|
2022-01-31 11:36:34 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2022-09-27 11:59:48 -07:00
|
|
|
The 'imm' field encodes the width of the swap operations. The following widths
|
2024-02-02 15:11:10 -07:00
|
|
|
are supported: 16, 32 and 64. Width 64 operations belong to the base64
|
|
|
|
conformance group and other swap operations belong to the base32
|
|
|
|
conformance group.
|
2022-01-31 11:36:34 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Examples:
|
|
|
|
|
2024-04-05 08:52:45 -07:00
|
|
|
``{END, TO_LE, ALU}`` with 'imm' = 16/32/64 means::
|
2022-01-31 11:36:34 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2023-01-27 15:45:55 -07:00
|
|
|
dst = htole16(dst)
|
2023-08-07 07:06:48 -07:00
|
|
|
dst = htole32(dst)
|
|
|
|
dst = htole64(dst)
|
2022-01-31 11:36:34 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2024-04-05 08:52:45 -07:00
|
|
|
``{END, TO_BE, ALU}`` with 'imm' = 16/32/64 means::
|
2022-01-31 11:36:34 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2023-08-07 07:06:48 -07:00
|
|
|
dst = htobe16(dst)
|
|
|
|
dst = htobe32(dst)
|
2023-01-27 15:45:55 -07:00
|
|
|
dst = htobe64(dst)
|
2022-01-31 11:36:34 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2024-04-05 08:52:45 -07:00
|
|
|
``{END, TO_LE, ALU64}`` with 'imm' = 16/32/64 means::
|
2023-07-27 18:13:42 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2023-08-07 07:06:48 -07:00
|
|
|
dst = bswap16(dst)
|
|
|
|
dst = bswap32(dst)
|
|
|
|
dst = bswap64(dst)
|
2023-07-27 18:13:42 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2022-01-03 11:35:52 -07:00
|
|
|
Jump instructions
|
|
|
|
-----------------
|
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
``JMP32`` uses 32-bit wide operands and indicates the base32
|
|
|
|
conformance group, while ``JMP`` uses 64-bit wide operands for
|
2024-02-02 15:11:10 -07:00
|
|
|
otherwise identical operations, and indicates the base64 conformance
|
|
|
|
group unless otherwise specified.
|
2022-09-27 11:59:48 -07:00
|
|
|
The 'code' field encodes the operation as below:
|
|
|
|
|
2024-04-19 13:36:17 -07:00
|
|
|
======== ===== ======= ================================= ===================================================
|
|
|
|
code value src_reg description notes
|
|
|
|
======== ===== ======= ================================= ===================================================
|
|
|
|
JA 0x0 0x0 PC += offset {JA, K, JMP} only
|
|
|
|
JA 0x0 0x0 PC += imm {JA, K, JMP32} only
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
JEQ 0x1 any PC += offset if dst == src
|
2024-04-19 13:36:17 -07:00
|
|
|
JGT 0x2 any PC += offset if dst > src unsigned
|
|
|
|
JGE 0x3 any PC += offset if dst >= src unsigned
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
JSET 0x4 any PC += offset if dst & src
|
|
|
|
JNE 0x5 any PC += offset if dst != src
|
2024-04-19 13:36:17 -07:00
|
|
|
JSGT 0x6 any PC += offset if dst > src signed
|
|
|
|
JSGE 0x7 any PC += offset if dst >= src signed
|
|
|
|
CALL 0x8 0x0 call helper function by static ID {CALL, K, JMP} only, see `Helper functions`_
|
|
|
|
CALL 0x8 0x1 call PC += imm {CALL, K, JMP} only, see `Program-local functions`_
|
|
|
|
CALL 0x8 0x2 call helper function by BTF ID {CALL, K, JMP} only, see `Helper functions`_
|
|
|
|
EXIT 0x9 0x0 return {CALL, K, JMP} only
|
|
|
|
JLT 0xa any PC += offset if dst < src unsigned
|
|
|
|
JLE 0xb any PC += offset if dst <= src unsigned
|
|
|
|
JSLT 0xc any PC += offset if dst < src signed
|
|
|
|
JSLE 0xd any PC += offset if dst <= src signed
|
|
|
|
======== ===== ======= ================================= ===================================================
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2024-04-26 16:11:26 -07:00
|
|
|
where 'PC' denotes the program counter, and the offset to increment by
|
|
|
|
is in units of 64-bit instructions relative to the instruction following
|
|
|
|
the jump instruction. Thus 'PC += 1' skips execution of the next
|
|
|
|
instruction if it's a basic instruction or results in undefined behavior
|
|
|
|
if the next instruction is a 128-bit wide instruction.
|
|
|
|
|
2023-03-10 16:38:14 -07:00
|
|
|
Example:
|
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
``{JSGE, X, JMP32}`` means::
|
2023-03-10 16:38:14 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (s32)dst s>= (s32)src goto +offset
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where 's>=' indicates a signed '>=' comparison.
|
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: clarify sign extension of 64-bit use of 32-bit imm
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>
2024-05-20 14:52:55 -07:00
|
|
|
``{JLE, K, JMP}`` means::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if dst <= (u64)(s64)imm goto +offset
|
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
``{JA, K, JMP32}`` means::
|
2023-07-27 18:13:42 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
gotol +imm
|
|
|
|
|
2024-04-05 08:52:45 -07:00
|
|
|
where 'imm' means the branch offset comes from the 'imm' field.
|
2023-07-27 18:13:42 -07:00
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
Note that there are two flavors of ``JA`` instructions. The
|
|
|
|
``JMP`` class permits a 16-bit jump offset specified by the 'offset'
|
|
|
|
field, whereas the ``JMP32`` class permits a 32-bit jump offset
|
2023-07-28 15:51:05 -07:00
|
|
|
specified by the 'imm' field. A > 16-bit conditional jump may be
|
|
|
|
converted to a < 16-bit conditional jump plus a 32-bit unconditional
|
|
|
|
jump.
|
2023-07-27 18:13:42 -07:00
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
All ``CALL`` and ``JA`` instructions belong to the
|
2024-02-02 15:11:10 -07:00
|
|
|
base32 conformance group.
|
|
|
|
|
2023-03-08 13:53:03 -07:00
|
|
|
Helper functions
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Helper functions are a concept whereby BPF programs can call into a
|
2023-03-25 20:31:17 -07:00
|
|
|
set of function calls exposed by the underlying platform.
|
|
|
|
|
2024-04-19 13:36:17 -07:00
|
|
|
Historically, each helper function was identified by a static ID
|
2024-04-05 08:52:45 -07:00
|
|
|
encoded in the 'imm' field. The available helper functions may differ
|
2024-04-19 13:36:17 -07:00
|
|
|
for each program type, but static IDs are unique across all program types.
|
2023-03-25 20:31:17 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Platforms that support the BPF Type Format (BTF) support identifying
|
2024-04-05 08:52:45 -07:00
|
|
|
a helper function by a BTF ID encoded in the 'imm' field, where the BTF ID
|
2024-05-17 09:58:55 -07:00
|
|
|
identifies the helper name and type. Further documentation of BTF
|
|
|
|
is outside the scope of this document and is left for future work.
|
2023-03-25 20:31:17 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Program-local functions
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
Program-local functions are functions exposed by the same BPF program as the
|
|
|
|
caller, and are referenced by offset from the call instruction, similar to
|
2024-04-05 08:52:45 -07:00
|
|
|
``JA``. The offset is encoded in the 'imm' field of the call instruction.
|
|
|
|
An ``EXIT`` within the program-local function will return to the caller.
|
2021-11-19 09:32:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2021-12-23 03:19:05 -07:00
|
|
|
Load and store instructions
|
|
|
|
===========================
|
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
For load and store instructions (``LD``, ``LDX``, ``ST``, and ``STX``), the
|
2024-04-05 08:52:45 -07:00
|
|
|
8-bit 'opcode' field is divided as follows::
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
|
|
|
|mode |sz |class|
|
|
|
|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**mode**
|
|
|
|
The mode modifier is one of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
============= ===== ==================================== =============
|
|
|
|
mode modifier value description reference
|
|
|
|
============= ===== ==================================== =============
|
|
|
|
IMM 0 64-bit immediate instructions `64-bit immediate instructions`_
|
|
|
|
ABS 1 legacy BPF packet access (absolute) `Legacy BPF Packet access instructions`_
|
|
|
|
IND 2 legacy BPF packet access (indirect) `Legacy BPF Packet access instructions`_
|
|
|
|
MEM 3 regular load and store operations `Regular load and store operations`_
|
|
|
|
MEMSX 4 sign-extension load operations `Sign-extension load operations`_
|
|
|
|
ATOMIC 6 atomic operations `Atomic operations`_
|
|
|
|
============= ===== ==================================== =============
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**sz (size)**
|
|
|
|
The size modifier is one of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==== ===== =====================
|
|
|
|
size value description
|
|
|
|
==== ===== =====================
|
|
|
|
W 0 word (4 bytes)
|
|
|
|
H 1 half word (2 bytes)
|
|
|
|
B 2 byte
|
|
|
|
DW 3 double word (8 bytes)
|
|
|
|
==== ===== =====================
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Instructions using ``DW`` belong to the base64 conformance group.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**class**
|
|
|
|
The instruction class (see `Instruction classes`_)
|
2024-02-02 15:11:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2022-01-31 11:36:35 -07:00
|
|
|
Regular load and store operations
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
The ``MEM`` mode modifier is used to encode regular load and store
|
2022-01-31 11:36:35 -07:00
|
|
|
instructions that transfer data between a register and memory.
|
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
``{MEM, <size>, STX}`` means::
|
2021-11-19 09:32:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2023-01-27 15:45:55 -07:00
|
|
|
*(size *) (dst + offset) = src
|
2021-11-19 09:32:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
``{MEM, <size>, ST}`` means::
|
2021-11-19 09:32:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2024-02-05 21:51:46 -07:00
|
|
|
*(size *) (dst + offset) = imm
|
2021-12-23 03:19:05 -07:00
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
``{MEM, <size>, LDX}`` means::
|
2021-12-23 03:19:05 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2023-07-27 18:13:42 -07:00
|
|
|
dst = *(unsigned size *) (src + offset)
|
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
Where '<size>' is one of: ``B``, ``H``, ``W``, or ``DW``, and
|
|
|
|
'unsigned size' is one of: u8, u16, u32, or u64.
|
2023-07-27 18:13:42 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2023-07-29 17:42:51 -07:00
|
|
|
Sign-extension load operations
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
The ``MEMSX`` mode modifier is used to encode :term:`sign-extension<Sign Extend>` load
|
2023-07-27 18:13:42 -07:00
|
|
|
instructions that transfer data between a register and memory.
|
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
``{MEMSX, <size>, LDX}`` means::
|
2023-07-27 18:13:42 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dst = *(signed size *) (src + offset)
|
2021-12-23 03:19:05 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2024-04-05 08:52:45 -07:00
|
|
|
Where '<size>' is one of: ``B``, ``H``, or ``W``, and
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
'signed size' is one of: s8, s16, or s32.
|
2021-12-23 03:19:05 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Atomic operations
|
|
|
|
-----------------
|
2021-11-19 09:32:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2022-01-31 11:36:38 -07:00
|
|
|
Atomic operations are operations that operate on memory and can not be
|
|
|
|
interrupted or corrupted by other access to the same memory region
|
2023-08-28 08:59:48 -07:00
|
|
|
by other BPF programs or means outside of this specification.
|
2021-11-19 09:32:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2023-08-28 08:59:48 -07:00
|
|
|
All atomic operations supported by BPF are encoded as store operations
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
that use the ``ATOMIC`` mode modifier as follows:
|
2021-11-19 09:32:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
* ``{ATOMIC, W, STX}`` for 32-bit operations, which are
|
2024-02-02 15:11:10 -07:00
|
|
|
part of the "atomic32" conformance group.
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
* ``{ATOMIC, DW, STX}`` for 64-bit operations, which are
|
2024-02-02 15:11:10 -07:00
|
|
|
part of the "atomic64" conformance group.
|
2022-09-27 11:59:48 -07:00
|
|
|
* 8-bit and 16-bit wide atomic operations are not supported.
|
2021-11-19 09:32:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2022-09-27 11:59:48 -07:00
|
|
|
The 'imm' field is used to encode the actual atomic operation.
|
2022-01-31 11:36:38 -07:00
|
|
|
Simple atomic operation use a subset of the values defined to encode
|
2022-09-27 11:59:48 -07:00
|
|
|
arithmetic operations in the 'imm' field to encode the atomic operation:
|
2021-11-19 09:32:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2022-09-27 11:59:48 -07:00
|
|
|
======== ===== ===========
|
|
|
|
imm value description
|
|
|
|
======== ===== ===========
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
ADD 0x00 atomic add
|
|
|
|
OR 0x40 atomic or
|
|
|
|
AND 0x50 atomic and
|
|
|
|
XOR 0xa0 atomic xor
|
2022-09-27 11:59:48 -07:00
|
|
|
======== ===== ===========
|
2021-11-19 09:32:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
``{ATOMIC, W, STX}`` with 'imm' = ADD means::
|
2021-11-19 09:32:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2023-01-27 15:45:55 -07:00
|
|
|
*(u32 *)(dst + offset) += src
|
2021-11-19 09:32:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
``{ATOMIC, DW, STX}`` with 'imm' = ADD means::
|
2021-11-19 09:32:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2023-01-27 15:45:55 -07:00
|
|
|
*(u64 *)(dst + offset) += src
|
2021-11-19 09:32:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2022-01-31 11:36:38 -07:00
|
|
|
In addition to the simple atomic operations, there also is a modifier and
|
|
|
|
two complex atomic operations:
|
|
|
|
|
2022-09-27 11:59:48 -07:00
|
|
|
=========== ================ ===========================
|
|
|
|
imm value description
|
|
|
|
=========== ================ ===========================
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
FETCH 0x01 modifier: return old value
|
|
|
|
XCHG 0xe0 | FETCH atomic exchange
|
|
|
|
CMPXCHG 0xf0 | FETCH atomic compare and exchange
|
2022-09-27 11:59:48 -07:00
|
|
|
=========== ================ ===========================
|
2022-01-31 11:36:38 -07:00
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
The ``FETCH`` modifier is optional for simple atomic operations, and
|
|
|
|
always set for the complex atomic operations. If the ``FETCH`` flag
|
2023-01-27 15:45:55 -07:00
|
|
|
is set, then the operation also overwrites ``src`` with the value that
|
2022-01-31 11:36:38 -07:00
|
|
|
was in memory before it was modified.
|
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
The ``XCHG`` operation atomically exchanges ``src`` with the value
|
2023-01-27 15:45:55 -07:00
|
|
|
addressed by ``dst + offset``.
|
2022-01-31 11:36:38 -07:00
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
The ``CMPXCHG`` operation atomically compares the value addressed by
|
2023-01-27 15:45:55 -07:00
|
|
|
``dst + offset`` with ``R0``. If they match, the value addressed by
|
|
|
|
``dst + offset`` is replaced with ``src``. In either case, the
|
|
|
|
value that was at ``dst + offset`` before the operation is zero-extended
|
2022-01-31 11:36:38 -07:00
|
|
|
and loaded back to ``R0``.
|
2021-11-19 09:32:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2022-01-31 11:36:37 -07:00
|
|
|
64-bit immediate instructions
|
|
|
|
-----------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
Instructions with the ``IMM`` 'mode' modifier use the wide instruction
|
2024-02-21 10:35:35 -07:00
|
|
|
encoding defined in `Instruction encoding`_, and use the 'src_reg' field of the
|
2023-03-25 22:49:46 -07:00
|
|
|
basic instruction to hold an opcode subtype.
|
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
The following table defines a set of ``{IMM, DW, LD}`` instructions
|
2024-02-21 10:35:35 -07:00
|
|
|
with opcode subtypes in the 'src_reg' field, using new terms such as "map"
|
2023-03-25 22:49:46 -07:00
|
|
|
defined further below:
|
|
|
|
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
======= ========================================= =========== ==============
|
|
|
|
src_reg pseudocode imm type dst type
|
|
|
|
======= ========================================= =========== ==============
|
|
|
|
0x0 dst = (next_imm << 32) | imm integer integer
|
|
|
|
0x1 dst = map_by_fd(imm) map fd map
|
2024-04-19 13:36:17 -07:00
|
|
|
0x2 dst = map_val(map_by_fd(imm)) + next_imm map fd data address
|
|
|
|
0x3 dst = var_addr(imm) variable id data address
|
|
|
|
0x4 dst = code_addr(imm) integer code address
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
0x5 dst = map_by_idx(imm) map index map
|
2024-04-19 13:36:17 -07:00
|
|
|
0x6 dst = map_val(map_by_idx(imm)) + next_imm map index data address
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
======= ========================================= =========== ==============
|
2023-03-25 22:49:46 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* map_by_fd(imm) means to convert a 32-bit file descriptor into an address of a map (see `Maps`_)
|
|
|
|
* map_by_idx(imm) means to convert a 32-bit index into an address of a map
|
|
|
|
* map_val(map) gets the address of the first value in a given map
|
|
|
|
* var_addr(imm) gets the address of a platform variable (see `Platform Variables`_) with a given id
|
|
|
|
* code_addr(imm) gets the address of the instruction at a specified relative offset in number of (64-bit) instructions
|
|
|
|
* the 'imm type' can be used by disassemblers for display
|
|
|
|
* the 'dst type' can be used for verification and JIT compilation purposes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maps
|
|
|
|
~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
2023-08-28 08:59:48 -07:00
|
|
|
Maps are shared memory regions accessible by BPF programs on some platforms.
|
2023-03-25 22:49:46 -07:00
|
|
|
A map can have various semantics as defined in a separate document, and may or
|
|
|
|
may not have a single contiguous memory region, but the 'map_val(map)' is
|
|
|
|
currently only defined for maps that do have a single contiguous memory region.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Each map can have a file descriptor (fd) if supported by the platform, where
|
|
|
|
'map_by_fd(imm)' means to get the map with the specified file descriptor. Each
|
|
|
|
BPF program can also be defined to use a set of maps associated with the
|
|
|
|
program at load time, and 'map_by_idx(imm)' means to get the map with the given
|
|
|
|
index in the set associated with the BPF program containing the instruction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Platform Variables
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Platform variables are memory regions, identified by integer ids, exposed by
|
|
|
|
the runtime and accessible by BPF programs on some platforms. The
|
|
|
|
'var_addr(imm)' operation means to get the address of the memory region
|
|
|
|
identified by the given id.
|
2021-12-23 03:19:06 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2022-01-31 11:36:36 -07:00
|
|
|
Legacy BPF Packet access instructions
|
|
|
|
-------------------------------------
|
2021-12-23 03:19:06 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2023-08-28 08:59:48 -07:00
|
|
|
BPF previously introduced special instructions for access to packet data that were
|
2024-01-30 20:37:59 -07:00
|
|
|
carried over from classic BPF. These instructions used an instruction
|
bpf, docs: Use IETF format for field definitions in instruction-set.rst
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>
2024-03-01 15:23:37 -07:00
|
|
|
class of ``LD``, a size modifier of ``W``, ``H``, or ``B``, and a
|
|
|
|
mode modifier of ``ABS`` or ``IND``. The 'dst_reg' and 'offset' fields were
|
|
|
|
set to zero, and 'src_reg' was set to zero for ``ABS``. However, these
|
2024-05-17 09:58:55 -07:00
|
|
|
instructions are deprecated and SHOULD no longer be used. All legacy packet
|
2024-03-01 18:22:29 -07:00
|
|
|
access instructions belong to the "packet" conformance group.
|