netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 5/9] bpf, verifier: improve signed ranges inference for 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: <0e46dcf652ff0b1168fc82e491c3d20eae18b21d.camel@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2024 11:47:55 -0700
From: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>
To: Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@...e.com>, Xu Kuohai
 <xukuohai@...weicloud.com>
Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
 linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
  Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann
 <daniel@...earbox.net>, Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>,  KP Singh
 <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>, Matt
 Bobrowski <mattbobrowski@...gle.com>, Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>,
 Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@...ux.ibm.com>, "Jose E . Marchesi"
 <jose.marchesi@...cle.com>, James Morris <jamorris@...ux.microsoft.com>,
 Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>, Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com>, Florent
 Revest <revest@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 5/9] bpf, verifier: improve signed ranges
 inference for BPF_AND

On Mon, 2024-07-22 at 20:57 +0800, Shung-Hsi Yu wrote:

[...]

> > As a nitpick, I think that it would be good to have some shortened
> > version of the derivation in the comments alongside the code.
> 
> Agree it would. Will try to add a 2-4 sentence explanation.
> 
> > (Maybe with a link to the mailing list).
> 
> Adding a link to the mailing list seems out of the usual for comment in
> verifier.c though, and it would be quite long. That said, it would be
> nice to hint that there exists a more verbose version of the
> explanation.
> 
> Maybe an explicit "see commit for the full detail" at the end of
> the added comment?

Tbh, I find bounds deduction code extremely confusing.
Imho, having lengthy comments there is a good thing.