We can see that "bswap32: Takes an unsigned 32-bit number in either big-
or little-endian format and returns the equivalent number with the same
bit width but opposite endianness" in BPF Instruction Set Specification,
so it should clear the upper 32 bits in "case 32:" for both BPF_ALU and
BPF_ALU64.

[root@linux fedora]# echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable
[root@linux fedora]# modprobe test_bpf

Before:
test_bpf: #313 BSWAP 32: 0x0123456789abcdef -> 0xefcdab89 jited:1 ret 1460850314 != -271733879 (0x5712ce8a != 0xefcdab89)FAIL (1 times)
test_bpf: #317 BSWAP 32: 0xfedcba9876543210 -> 0x10325476 jited:1 ret -1460850316 != 271733878 (0xa8ed3174 != 0x10325476)FAIL (1 times)

After:
test_bpf: #313 BSWAP 32: 0x0123456789abcdef -> 0xefcdab89 jited:1 4 PASS
test_bpf: #317 BSWAP 32: 0xfedcba9876543210 -> 0x10325476 jited:1 4 PASS

Fixes: 4ebf921 ("LoongArch: BPF: Support unconditional bswap instructions")
Acked-by: Hengqi Chen <hengqi.chen@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn>
Signed-off-by: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@loongson.cn>

In case when is64 == 1 in emit(A64_REV32(is64, dst, dst), ctx) the
generated insn reverses byte order for both high and low 32-bit words,
resuling in an incorrect swap as indicated by the jit test:

[ 9757.262607] test_bpf: #312 BSWAP 16: 0x0123456789abcdef -> 0xefcd jited:1 8 PASS
[ 9757.264435] test_bpf: #313 BSWAP 32: 0x0123456789abcdef -> 0xefcdab89 jited:1 ret 1460850314 != -271733879 (0x5712ce8a != 0xefcdab89)FAIL (1 times)
[ 9757.266260] test_bpf: #314 BSWAP 64: 0x0123456789abcdef -> 0x67452301 jited:1 8 PASS
[ 9757.268000] test_bpf: #315 BSWAP 64: 0x0123456789abcdef >> 32 -> 0xefcdab89 jited:1 8 PASS
[ 9757.269686] test_bpf: #316 BSWAP 16: 0xfedcba9876543210 -> 0x1032 jited:1 8 PASS
[ 9757.271380] test_bpf: #317 BSWAP 32: 0xfedcba9876543210 -> 0x10325476 jited:1 ret -1460850316 != 271733878 (0xa8ed3174 != 0x10325476)FAIL (1 times)
[ 9757.273022] test_bpf: #318 BSWAP 64: 0xfedcba9876543210 -> 0x98badcfe jited:1 7 PASS
[ 9757.274721] test_bpf: #319 BSWAP 64: 0xfedcba9876543210 >> 32 -> 0x10325476 jited:1 9 PASS

Fix this by forcing 32bit variant of rev32.

Fixes: 1104247 ("bpf, arm64: Support unconditional bswap")
Signed-off-by: Artem Savkov <asavkov@redhat.com>
Tested-by: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <20240321081809.158803-1-asavkov@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>

Recent additions in BPF like cpu v4 instructions, test_bpf module
exhibits the following failures:

  test_bpf: #82 ALU_MOVSX | BPF_B jited:1 ret 2 != 1 (0x2 != 0x1)FAIL (1 times)
  test_bpf: #83 ALU_MOVSX | BPF_H jited:1 ret 2 != 1 (0x2 != 0x1)FAIL (1 times)
  test_bpf: #84 ALU64_MOVSX | BPF_B jited:1 ret 2 != 1 (0x2 != 0x1)FAIL (1 times)
  test_bpf: #85 ALU64_MOVSX | BPF_H jited:1 ret 2 != 1 (0x2 != 0x1)FAIL (1 times)
  test_bpf: #86 ALU64_MOVSX | BPF_W jited:1 ret 2 != 1 (0x2 != 0x1)FAIL (1 times)

  test_bpf: #165 ALU_SDIV_X: -6 / 2 = -3 jited:1 ret 2147483645 != -3 (0x7ffffffd != 0xfffffffd)FAIL (1 times)
  test_bpf: #166 ALU_SDIV_K: -6 / 2 = -3 jited:1 ret 2147483645 != -3 (0x7ffffffd != 0xfffffffd)FAIL (1 times)

  test_bpf: #169 ALU_SMOD_X: -7 % 2 = -1 jited:1 ret 1 != -1 (0x1 != 0xffffffff)FAIL (1 times)
  test_bpf: #170 ALU_SMOD_K: -7 % 2 = -1 jited:1 ret 1 != -1 (0x1 != 0xffffffff)FAIL (1 times)

  test_bpf: #172 ALU64_SMOD_K: -7 % 2 = -1 jited:1 ret 1 != -1 (0x1 != 0xffffffff)FAIL (1 times)

  test_bpf: #313 BSWAP 16: 0x0123456789abcdef -> 0xefcd
  eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported
  jited:0 301 PASS
  test_bpf: #314 BSWAP 32: 0x0123456789abcdef -> 0xefcdab89
  eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported
  jited:0 555 PASS
  test_bpf: #315 BSWAP 64: 0x0123456789abcdef -> 0x67452301
  eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported
  jited:0 268 PASS
  test_bpf: #316 BSWAP 64: 0x0123456789abcdef >> 32 -> 0xefcdab89
  eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported
  jited:0 269 PASS
  test_bpf: #317 BSWAP 16: 0xfedcba9876543210 -> 0x1032
  eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported
  jited:0 460 PASS
  test_bpf: #318 BSWAP 32: 0xfedcba9876543210 -> 0x10325476
  eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported
  jited:0 320 PASS
  test_bpf: #319 BSWAP 64: 0xfedcba9876543210 -> 0x98badcfe
  eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported
  jited:0 222 PASS
  test_bpf: #320 BSWAP 64: 0xfedcba9876543210 >> 32 -> 0x10325476
  eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported
  jited:0 273 PASS

  test_bpf: #344 BPF_LDX_MEMSX | BPF_B
  eBPF filter opcode 0091 (@5) unsupported
  jited:0 432 PASS
  test_bpf: #345 BPF_LDX_MEMSX | BPF_H
  eBPF filter opcode 0089 (@5) unsupported
  jited:0 381 PASS
  test_bpf: #346 BPF_LDX_MEMSX | BPF_W
  eBPF filter opcode 0081 (@5) unsupported
  jited:0 505 PASS

  test_bpf: #490 JMP32_JA: Unconditional jump: if (true) return 1
  eBPF filter opcode 0006 (@1) unsupported
  jited:0 261 PASS

  test_bpf: Summary: 1040 PASSED, 10 FAILED, [924/1038 JIT'ed]

Fix them by adding missing processing.

Fixes: daabb2b ("bpf/tests: add tests for cpuv4 instructions")
Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://msgid.link/91de862dda99d170697eb79ffb478678af7e0b27.1709652689.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu