lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
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