[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190410201302.4e67d48f@cakuba.netronome.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 20:13:12 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To: Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@...ronome.com>
Cc: alexei.starovoitov@...il.com, daniel@...earbox.net,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
oss-drivers@...ronome.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC v2 bpf-next 06/19] bpf: mark lo32 writes that should
be zero extended into hi32
On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 20:50:20 +0100, Jiong Wang wrote:
> @@ -2169,6 +2188,12 @@ static int check_mem_access(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx, u32 regn
> value_regno);
> if (reg_type_may_be_null(reg_type))
> regs[value_regno].id = ++env->id_gen;
> + /* A load of ctx field could have different
> + * actual load size with the one encoded in the
> + * insn. When the dst is PTR, it is for sure not
> + * a sub-register.
> + */
> + regs[value_regno].subreg_def = DEF_NOT_SUBREG;
Can't the rewrite generate a 32bit load? E.g. reading skb->len will be
LDX | W, we still gotta clear the top bits in that case, no?
I can't find the explanation of this case with a quick scan of the code
and cover letter..
> }
> regs[value_regno].type = reg_type;
> }
Powered by blists - more mailing lists