linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.14 042/246] bpf, arm32: fix inconsistent naming about emit_a32_lsr

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed,  1 Aug 2018 18:49:12 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Wang YanQing <udknight@...il.com>,
        Shubham Bansal <illusionist.neo@...il.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux@...linux.org.uk,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@...rosoft.com>
Subject: [PATCH 4.14 042/246] bpf, arm32: fix inconsistent naming about emit_a32_lsr_{r64,i64}

4.14-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Wang YanQing <udknight@...il.com>

[ Upstream commit 68565a1af9f7012e6f2fe2bdd612f67d2d830c28 ]

The names for BPF_ALU64 | BPF_ARSH are emit_a32_arsh_*,
the names for BPF_ALU64 | BPF_LSH are emit_a32_lsh_*, but
the names for BPF_ALU64 | BPF_RSH are emit_a32_lsr_*.

For consistence reason, let's rename emit_a32_lsr_* to
emit_a32_rsh_*.

This patch also corrects a wrong comment.

Fixes: 39c13c204bb1 ("arm: eBPF JIT compiler")
Signed-off-by: Wang YanQing <udknight@...il.com>
Cc: Shubham Bansal <illusionist.neo@...il.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc: linux@...linux.org.uk
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@...rosoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
 arch/arm/net/bpf_jit_32.c |   10 +++++-----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

--- a/arch/arm/net/bpf_jit_32.c
+++ b/arch/arm/net/bpf_jit_32.c
@@ -718,7 +718,7 @@ static inline void emit_a32_arsh_r64(con
 }
 
 /* dst = dst >> src */
-static inline void emit_a32_lsr_r64(const u8 dst[], const u8 src[], bool dstk,
+static inline void emit_a32_rsh_r64(const u8 dst[], const u8 src[], bool dstk,
 				     bool sstk, struct jit_ctx *ctx) {
 	const u8 *tmp = bpf2a32[TMP_REG_1];
 	const u8 *tmp2 = bpf2a32[TMP_REG_2];
@@ -734,7 +734,7 @@ static inline void emit_a32_lsr_r64(cons
 		emit(ARM_LDR_I(rm, ARM_SP, STACK_VAR(dst_hi)), ctx);
 	}
 
-	/* Do LSH operation */
+	/* Do RSH operation */
 	emit(ARM_RSB_I(ARM_IP, rt, 32), ctx);
 	emit(ARM_SUBS_I(tmp2[0], rt, 32), ctx);
 	emit(ARM_MOV_SR(ARM_LR, rd, SRTYPE_LSR, rt), ctx);
@@ -784,7 +784,7 @@ static inline void emit_a32_lsh_i64(cons
 }
 
 /* dst = dst >> val */
-static inline void emit_a32_lsr_i64(const u8 dst[], bool dstk,
+static inline void emit_a32_rsh_i64(const u8 dst[], bool dstk,
 				    const u32 val, struct jit_ctx *ctx) {
 	const u8 *tmp = bpf2a32[TMP_REG_1];
 	const u8 *tmp2 = bpf2a32[TMP_REG_2];
@@ -1340,7 +1340,7 @@ static int build_insn(const struct bpf_i
 	case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_RSH | BPF_K:
 		if (unlikely(imm > 63))
 			return -EINVAL;
-		emit_a32_lsr_i64(dst, dstk, imm, ctx);
+		emit_a32_rsh_i64(dst, dstk, imm, ctx);
 		break;
 	/* dst = dst << src */
 	case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_LSH | BPF_X:
@@ -1348,7 +1348,7 @@ static int build_insn(const struct bpf_i
 		break;
 	/* dst = dst >> src */
 	case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_RSH | BPF_X:
-		emit_a32_lsr_r64(dst, src, dstk, sstk, ctx);
+		emit_a32_rsh_r64(dst, src, dstk, sstk, ctx);
 		break;
 	/* dst = dst >> src (signed) */
 	case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_ARSH | BPF_X: