[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <563A5EEA.6020007@iogearbox.net>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 20:39:22 +0100
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To: "Shi, Yang" <yang.shi@...aro.org>, 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 11/04/2015 07:41 PM, Shi, Yang wrote:
...
>>> 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.
Looks good to me.
Thanks,
Daniel
--
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