[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <563A5171.5070608@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 10:41:53 -0800
From: "Shi, Yang" <yang.shi@...aro.org>
To: Z Lim <zlim.lnx@...il.com>
CC: Xi Wang <xi.wang@...il.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: bpf: fix div-by-zero case
On 11/4/2015 10:25 AM, Z Lim wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Shi, Yang <yang.shi@...aro.org> wrote:
>> On 11/3/2015 11:04 PM, Xi Wang wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Zi Shen Lim <zlim.lnx@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> case BPF_ALU | BPF_DIV | BPF_X:
>>>> case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_DIV | BPF_X:
>>>> + {
>>>> + const u8 r0 = bpf2a64[BPF_REG_0];
>>>> +
>>>> + /* if (src == 0) return 0 */
>>>> + jmp_offset = 3; /* skip ahead to else path */
>>>> + check_imm19(jmp_offset);
>>>> + emit(A64_CBNZ(is64, src, jmp_offset), ctx);
>>>> + emit(A64_MOVZ(1, r0, 0, 0), ctx);
>>>> + jmp_offset = epilogue_offset(ctx);
>>>> + check_imm26(jmp_offset);
>>>> + emit(A64_B(jmp_offset), ctx);
>>>> + /* else */
>>>> emit(A64_UDIV(is64, dst, dst, src), ctx);
>>>> break;
>>>> + }
>>>> case BPF_ALU | BPF_MOD | BPF_X:
>>>> case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOD | BPF_X:
>>>
>>>
>>> BPF_MOD might need the same fix.
>
> I'll post a fix for this case as well.
>
>>
>>
>> Agreed, and we may need add one more test cases in test_bpf module to cover
>> MOD?
>
> Let me know if you have a test case ready :)
Does the below change look like a valid test?
+ "MOD default X",
+ .u.insns = {
+ /*
+ * A = 0x42
+ * A = A mod X ; this halt the filter execution
if X is 0
+ * ret 0x42
+ */
+ BPF_STMT(BPF_LD | BPF_IMM, 0x42),
+ BPF_STMT(BPF_ALU | BPF_MOD | BPF_X, 0),
+ BPF_STMT(BPF_RET | BPF_K, 0x42),
+ },
+ CLASSIC | FLAG_NO_DATA,
+ {},
+ { {0x1, 0x0 } },
+ },
+ {
+ "MOD default A",
+ .u.insns = {
+ /*
+ * A = A mod 1
+ * ret A
+ */
+ BPF_STMT(BPF_ALU | BPF_MOD | BPF_K, 0x1),
+ BPF_STMT(BPF_RET | BPF_A, 0x0),
+ },
+ CLASSIC | FLAG_NO_DATA,
+ {},
+ { {0x1, 0x0 } },
+ },
My test result with it:
test_bpf: #284 MOD default X jited:1 ret 66 != 0 FAIL (1 times)
test_bpf: #285 MOD default A jited:1 102 PASS
If it looks right, I will post a patch to add the test cases.
Thanks,
Yang
>
>>
>> Yang
>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
>>> linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
>>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>>>
>>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists