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: <b516b0dc-df40-8dae-8b3c-16048d2bfdb3@fb.com> Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2022 19:03:54 -0700 From: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com> To: Pu Lehui <pulehui@...wei.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Quentin Monnet <quentin@...valent.com>, Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>, Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/5] bpf: Unify memory address casting operation style On 7/16/22 5:51 AM, Pu Lehui wrote: > Memory addresses are conceptually unsigned, (unsigned long) casting > makes more sense, so let's make a change for conceptual uniformity > and there is no functional change. > > Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@...wei.com> Only a few in bpf system, agree that we can do the change so in the future we can recommend 'unsigned long' vs. 'long' casting based on existing code base. Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com> > --- > kernel/bpf/core.c | 2 +- > kernel/bpf/helpers.c | 6 +++--- > kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 2 +- > kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 6 +++--- > 4 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c > index cfb8a50a9f12..e14b399dd408 100644 > --- a/kernel/bpf/core.c > +++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c > @@ -1954,7 +1954,7 @@ static u64 ___bpf_prog_run(u64 *regs, const struct bpf_insn *insn) > CONT; \ > LDX_PROBE_MEM_##SIZEOP: \ > bpf_probe_read_kernel(&DST, sizeof(SIZE), \ > - (const void *)(long) (SRC + insn->off)); \ > + (const void *)(unsigned long) (SRC + insn->off)); \ > DST = *((SIZE *)&DST); \ > CONT; > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c > index a1c84d256f83..92c01dd007a6 100644 > --- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c > +++ b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c > @@ -903,7 +903,7 @@ int bpf_bprintf_prepare(char *fmt, u32 fmt_size, const u64 *raw_args, > err = snprintf(tmp_buf, > (tmp_buf_end - tmp_buf), > "%pB", > - (void *)(long)raw_args[num_spec]); > + (void *)(unsigned long)raw_args[num_spec]); > tmp_buf += (err + 1); > } > > @@ -929,7 +929,7 @@ int bpf_bprintf_prepare(char *fmt, u32 fmt_size, const u64 *raw_args, > goto out; > } > > - unsafe_ptr = (char *)(long)raw_args[num_spec]; > + unsafe_ptr = (char *)(unsigned long)raw_args[num_spec]; > err = copy_from_kernel_nofault(cur_ip, unsafe_ptr, > sizeof_cur_ip); > if (err < 0) > @@ -966,7 +966,7 @@ int bpf_bprintf_prepare(char *fmt, u32 fmt_size, const u64 *raw_args, > goto out; > } > > - unsafe_ptr = (char *)(long)raw_args[num_spec]; > + unsafe_ptr = (char *)(unsigned long)raw_args[num_spec]; > err = bpf_trace_copy_string(tmp_buf, unsafe_ptr, > fmt_ptype, > tmp_buf_end - tmp_buf); > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c > index 83c7136c5788..d1380473e620 100644 > --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c > +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c > @@ -5108,7 +5108,7 @@ BPF_CALL_3(bpf_sys_bpf, int, cmd, union bpf_attr *, attr, u32, attr_size) > bpf_prog_put(prog); > return -EBUSY; > } > - attr->test.retval = bpf_prog_run(prog, (void *) (long) attr->test.ctx_in); > + attr->test.retval = bpf_prog_run(prog, (void *) (unsigned long) attr->test.ctx_in); > __bpf_prog_exit_sleepable(prog, 0 /* bpf_prog_run does runtime stats */, &run_ctx); > bpf_prog_put(prog); > return 0; > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > index c59c3df0fea6..d91f17598833 100644 > --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > @@ -4445,7 +4445,7 @@ static int bpf_map_direct_read(struct bpf_map *map, int off, int size, u64 *val) > err = map->ops->map_direct_value_addr(map, &addr, off); > if (err) > return err; > - ptr = (void *)(long)addr + off; > + ptr = (void *)(unsigned long)addr + off; > > switch (size) { > case sizeof(u8): > @@ -6113,7 +6113,7 @@ static int check_func_arg(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 arg, > return err; > } > > - str_ptr = (char *)(long)(map_addr); > + str_ptr = (char *)(unsigned long)(map_addr); > if (!strnchr(str_ptr + map_off, map->value_size - map_off, 0)) { > verbose(env, "string is not zero-terminated\n"); > return -EINVAL; > @@ -7099,7 +7099,7 @@ static int check_bpf_snprintf_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, > verbose(env, "verifier bug\n"); > return -EFAULT; > } > - fmt = (char *)(long)fmt_addr + fmt_map_off; > + fmt = (char *)(unsigned long)fmt_addr + fmt_map_off; > > /* We are also guaranteed that fmt+fmt_map_off is NULL terminated, we > * can focus on validating the format specifiers.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists