[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABg9mcud=quxDbAGwXo0CyHjDa4aOL_yuk9hwRp1asu-z+fOAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 13:41:40 -0800
From: Z Lim <zlim.lnx@...il.com>
To: "Shi, Yang" <yang.shi@...aro.org>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Xi Wang <xi.wang@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: bpf: fix buffer pointer
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Shi, Yang <yang.shi@...aro.org> wrote:
> On 11/18/2015 12:56 AM, Zi Shen Lim wrote:
>> emit_a64_mov_i64(r3, size, ctx);
>> - emit(A64_ADD_I(1, r4, fp, MAX_BPF_STACK), ctx);
>> + emit(A64_SUB_I(1, r4, fp, STACK_SIZE), ctx);
>
>
> Should not it sub MAX_BPF_STACK?
No, if it's at (BPF_FP - MAX_BPF_STACK), we'll be writing into the BPF
stack area, which should only be used by the BPF program.
> If you sub STACK_SIZE here, the buffer pointer will point to bottom of the
> reserved area.
Yes, that's the idea. The buffer is allocated in here. Right now we're
using this "reserved" space for this buffer only.
>
> You stack layout change also shows this:
>
> + * +-----+ <= (BPF_FP - MAX_BPF_STACK)
> + * |RSVD | JIT scratchpad
> + * current A64_SP => +-----+ <= (BPF_FP - STACK_SIZE)
Yes, this diagram reflects the code and intention.
Thanks for reviewing, we definitely need more of these :)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists