netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] bpf/verifier: improve disassembly of BPF

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <7c1ab2b8-e65d-3b09-f9f0-9fd13c1ceccf@solarflare.com>
Date:   Fri, 22 Sep 2017 17:23:58 +0100
From:   Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Y Song <ys114321@...il.com>
CC:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] bpf/verifier: improve disassembly of BPF_END
 instructions

On 22/09/17 16:16, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> looks like we're converging on
> "be16/be32/be64/le16/le32/le64 #register" for BPF_END.
> I guess it can live with that. I would prefer more C like syntax
> to match the rest, but llvm parsing point is a strong one.
Yep, agreed.  I'll post a v2 once we've settled BPF_NEG.
> For BPG_NEG I prefer to do it in C syntax like interpreter does:
>         ALU_NEG:
>                 DST = (u32) -DST;
>         ALU64_NEG:
>                 DST = -DST;
> Yonghong, does it mean that asmparser will equally suffer?
Correction to my earlier statements: verifier will currently disassemble
 neg as:
(87) r0 neg 0
(84) (u32) r0 neg (u32) 0
 because it pretends 'neg' is a compound-assignment operator like +=.
The analogy with be16 and friends would be to use
    neg64 r0
    neg32 r0
 whereas the analogy with everything else would be
    r0 = -r0
    r0 = (u32) -r0
 as Alexei says.
I'm happy to go with Alexei's version if it doesn't cause problems for llvm.