Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/6] bpf, x86: Add 64-bit bitops kfuncs support for x86_64

From: Leon Hwang <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2026 23:54:16 +0800

On 2026/2/20 01:47, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 6:30 AM Leon Hwang <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>
>> Implement JIT inlining of the 64-bit bitops kfuncs on x86_64.
>>
>> bpf_rol64() and bpf_ror64() are always supported via ROL/ROR.
>>
>> bpf_ctz64() and bpf_ffs64() are supported when the CPU has
>> X86_FEATURE_BMI1 (TZCNT).
>>
>> bpf_clz64() and bpf_fls64() are supported when the CPU has
>> X86_FEATURE_ABM (LZCNT).
>>
>> bpf_popcnt64() is supported when the CPU has X86_FEATURE_POPCNT.
>>
>> bpf_bitrev64() is not inlined as x86_64 has no native bit-reverse
>> instruction, so it falls back to a regular function call.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <[email-masked]>
>> ---
>>  arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 141 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 141 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>> index 070ba80e39d7..193e1e2d7aa8 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
>>  #include <asm/text-patching.h>
>>  #include <asm/unwind.h>
>>  #include <asm/cfi.h>
>> +#include <asm/cpufeatures.h>
>>
>>  static bool all_callee_regs_used[4] = {true, true, true, true};
>>
>> @@ -1604,6 +1605,127 @@ static void emit_priv_frame_ptr(u8 **pprog, void __percpu *priv_frame_ptr)
>>         *pprog = prog;
>>  }
>>
>> +static bool bpf_inlines_func_call(u8 **pprog, void *func)
>> +{
>> +       bool has_popcnt = boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_POPCNT);
>> +       bool has_bmi1 = boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_BMI1);
>> +       bool has_abm = boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_ABM);
>> +       bool inlined = true;
>> +       u8 *prog = *pprog;
>> +
>> +       /*
>> +        * x86 Bit manipulation instruction set
>> +        * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_Bit_manipulation_instruction_set
>> +        */
>> +
>> +       if (func == bpf_clz64 && has_abm) {
>> +               /*
>> +                * Intel® 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software Developer's Manual (June 2023)
>> +                *
>> +                *   LZCNT - Count the Number of Leading Zero Bits
>> +                *
>> +                *     Opcode/Instruction
>> +                *     F3 REX.W 0F BD /r
>> +                *     LZCNT r64, r/m64
>> +                *
>> +                *     Op/En
>> +                *     RVM
>> +                *
>> +                *     64/32-bit Mode
>> +                *     V/N.E.
>> +                *
>> +                *     CPUID Feature Flag
>> +                *     LZCNT
>> +                *
>> +                *     Description
>> +                *     Count the number of leading zero bits in r/m64, return
>> +                *     result in r64.
>> +                */
>> +               /* emit: x ? 64 - fls64(x) : 64 */
>> +               /* lzcnt rax, rdi */
>> +               EMIT5(0xF3, 0x48, 0x0F, 0xBD, 0xC7);
> 
> Instead of emitting binary in x86 and arm JITs,
> let's use in kernel disasm to check that all these kfuncs
> conform to kf_fastcall (don't use unnecessary registers,
> don't have calls to other functions) and then copy the binary
> from code and skip the last 'ret' insn.
> This way we can inline all kinds of kfuncs.
> 

Good idea.

Quick question on “in-kernel disasm”: do you mean adding a kernel
instruction decoder/disassembler to validate a whitelist of kfuncs at
load time?

I’m trying to understand the intended scope:

* Is the expectation that we add an in-kernel disassembler/validator for
  a small set of supported instructions and patterns (no calls/jumps,
  only arg/ret regs touched, etc.)?
* Or is there already infrastructure you had in mind that we can reuse?

Once I understand that piece, I can rework the series to inline by
copying validated machine code (minus the final ret), rather than
emitting raw opcodes in the JITs.

I also noticed you mentioned a similar direction in "bpf/s390: Implement
get_preempt_count()" [1], so I’ve added Ilya to the thread to discuss
this approach further.

[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email-masked]/

Thanks,
Leon