bpf: verifier: mark verified-insn with sub-register zext flag

      eBPF ISA specification requires high 32-bit cleared when low 32-bit
sub-register is written. This applies to destination register of ALU32 etc.
JIT back-ends must guarantee this semantic when doing code-gen. x86_64 and
AArch64 ISA has the same semantics, so the corresponding JIT back-end
doesn't need to do extra work.

However, 32-bit arches (arm, x86, nfp etc.) and some other 64-bit arches
(PowerPC, SPARC etc) need to do explicit zero extension to meet this
requirement, otherwise code like the following will fail.

  u64_value = (u64) u32_value
  ... other uses of u64_value

This is because compiler could exploit the semantic described above and
save those zero extensions for extending u32_value to u64_value, these JIT
back-ends are expected to guarantee this through inserting extra zero
extensions which however could be a significant increase on the code size.
Some benchmarks show there could be ~40% sub-register writes ou