[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1525127296-3573-4-git-send-email-jiong.wang@netronome.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 18:28:16 -0400
From: Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@...ronome.com>
To: alexei.starovoitov@...il.com, borkmann@...earbox.net
Cc: ecree@...arflare.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
oss-drivers@...ronome.com, Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@...ronome.com>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next 3/3] bpf: add faked "ending" subprog
There are quite a few code snippet like the following in verifier:
subprog_start = 0;
if (env->subprog_cnt == cur_subprog + 1)
subprog_end = insn_cnt;
else
subprog_end = env->subprog_info[cur_subprog + 1].start;
The reason is there is no marker in subprog_info array to tell the end of
it.
We could resolve this issue by introducing a faked "ending" subprog.
The special "ending" subprog is with "insn_cnt" as start offset, so it is
serving as the end mark whenever we iterate over all subprogs.
Signed-off-by: Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@...ronome.com>
---
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 31 ++++++++++++-------------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 9764b9b..4a081e0 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -766,7 +766,7 @@ static int add_subprog(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int off)
ret = find_subprog(env, off);
if (ret >= 0)
return 0;
- if (env->subprog_cnt > BPF_MAX_SUBPROGS) {
+ if (env->subprog_cnt >= BPF_MAX_SUBPROGS) {
verbose(env, "too many subprograms\n");
return -E2BIG;
}
@@ -807,16 +807,18 @@ static int check_subprogs(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
return ret;
}
+ /* Add a fake 'exit' subprog which could simplify subprog iteration
+ * logic. 'subprog_cnt' should not be increased.
+ */
+ subprog[env->subprog_cnt].start = insn_cnt;
+
if (env->log.level > 1)
for (i = 0; i < env->subprog_cnt; i++)
verbose(env, "func#%d @%d\n", i, subprog[i].start);
/* now check that all jumps are within the same subprog */
- subprog_start = 0;
- if (env->subprog_cnt == cur_subprog + 1)
- subprog_end = insn_cnt;
- else
- subprog_end = subprog[cur_subprog + 1].start;
+ subprog_start = subprog[cur_subprog].start;
+ subprog_end = subprog[cur_subprog + 1].start;
for (i = 0; i < insn_cnt; i++) {
u8 code = insn[i].code;
@@ -840,11 +842,9 @@ static int check_subprogs(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
verbose(env, "last insn is not an exit or jmp\n");
return -EINVAL;
}
- cur_subprog++;
subprog_start = subprog_end;
- if (env->subprog_cnt == cur_subprog + 1)
- subprog_end = insn_cnt;
- else
+ cur_subprog++;
+ if (cur_subprog < env->subprog_cnt)
subprog_end = subprog[cur_subprog + 1].start;
}
}
@@ -1499,7 +1499,6 @@ static int check_max_stack_depth(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
int depth = 0, frame = 0, idx = 0, i = 0, subprog_end;
struct bpf_subprog_info *subprog = env->subprog_info;
struct bpf_insn *insn = env->prog->insnsi;
- int insn_cnt = env->prog->len;
int ret_insn[MAX_CALL_FRAMES];
int ret_prog[MAX_CALL_FRAMES];
@@ -1514,10 +1513,7 @@ static int check_max_stack_depth(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
return -EACCES;
}
continue_func:
- if (env->subprog_cnt == idx + 1)
- subprog_end = insn_cnt;
- else
- subprog_end = subprog[idx + 1].start;
+ subprog_end = subprog[idx + 1].start;
for (; i < subprog_end; i++) {
if (insn[i].code != (BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL))
continue;
@@ -5268,10 +5264,7 @@ static int jit_subprogs(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
for (i = 0; i < env->subprog_cnt; i++) {
subprog_start = subprog_end;
- if (env->subprog_cnt == i + 1)
- subprog_end = prog->len;
- else
- subprog_end = env->subprog_info[i + 1].start;
+ subprog_end = env->subprog_info[i + 1].start;
len = subprog_end - subprog_start;
func[i] = bpf_prog_alloc(bpf_prog_size(len), GFP_USER);
--
2.7.4
Powered by blists - more mailing lists