[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20170525.123158.1379700931139186123.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 12:31:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: daniel@...earbox.net
Cc: ast@...com, ecree@...arflare.com, alexei.starovoitov@...il.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Alignment in BPF verifier
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 23:27:20 +0200
> On 05/23/2017 09:45 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> On 5/23/17 7:41 AM, Edward Cree wrote:
>>> Hmm, that means that we can't do arithmetic on a
>>> PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL, we have to convert it to a PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE
>>> first by NULL-checking it. That's probably fine, but I can just about
>>> imagine some compiler optimisation reordering them. Any reason not to
>>> split this out into a different reg->field, rather than overloading
>>> id?
>>
>> 'id' is sort of like 'version' of a pointer and has the same meaning
>> in
>> both cases. How exactly do you see this split?
>
> Also, same id is never reused once generated and later propagated
> through regs. So far we haven't run into this kind of optimization
> from llvm side yet, but others which led to requiring the id marker
> (see 57a09bf0a416). I could imagine it might be needed at some point,
> though where we later transition directly to PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_ADJ
> after NULL check. Out of curiosity, did you run into it with llvm?
We could handle this issue in find_good_pkt_pointers(), nothing prevents
us from advancing state there for cases like Edward notes above.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists