[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7bae321b-c0ac-ddea-3abf-a30d940a9f89@solarflare.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 19:28:27 +0100
From: Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>
To: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
"Alexei Starovoitov" <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>
CC: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
iovisor-dev <iovisor-dev@...ts.iovisor.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 02/12] bpf/verifier: rework value tracking
On 28/06/17 18:09, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> Could you elaborate on this one? If I understand it correctly, then
> the scalar += pointer case would mean the following: given I have one
> of the allowed pointer types in adjust_ptr_min_max_vals() then the
> prior scalar type inherits the ptr type/id. I would then 'destroy' the
> pointer value so we get a -EACCES on it. We mark the tmp off_reg as
> scalar type, but shouldn't also actual dst_reg be marked as such
> like in below pointer += scalar case, such that we undo the prior
> ptr_type inheritance?
Good catch. The intent was that adjust_ptr_min_max_vals() wouldn't mark
dst_reg's type/id in the case when it returned -EACCES, but indeed there
are some such paths, and rather than changing those it may be easier to
change the type/id back to scalar/0. I don't think we need to go as far
as calling __mark_reg_unknown() on it though, its bounds and align
shouldn't have been screwed up by adjust_ptr_min_max_vals().
-Ed
Powered by blists - more mailing lists