| Message ID | 20201207160734.2345502-6-jackmanb@google.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Delegated to: | BPF |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Atomics for eBPF | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| netdev/cover_letter | success | Link |
| netdev/fixes_present | success | Link |
| netdev/patch_count | success | Link |
| netdev/tree_selection | success | Clearly marked for bpf-next |
| netdev/subject_prefix | success | Link |
| netdev/source_inline | success | Was 0 now: 0 |
| netdev/verify_signedoff | success | Link |
| netdev/module_param | success | Was 0 now: 0 |
| netdev/build_32bit | success | Errors and warnings before: 17 this patch: 17 |
| netdev/kdoc | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
| netdev/verify_fixes | success | Link |
| netdev/checkpatch | warning | WARNING: line length of 87 exceeds 80 columns |
| netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn | success | Errors and warnings before: 17 this patch: 17 |
| netdev/header_inline | success | Link |
| netdev/stable | success | Stable not CCed |
On 12/7/20 8:07 AM, Brendan Jackman wrote: > I can't find a reason why this code is in resolve_pseudo_ldimm64; > since I'll be modifying it in a subsequent commit, tidy it up. > > Signed-off-by: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com> Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
Brendan Jackman wrote: > I can't find a reason why this code is in resolve_pseudo_ldimm64; > since I'll be modifying it in a subsequent commit, tidy it up. > > Signed-off-by: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com> > --- > kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 13 ++++++------- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 615be10abd71..745c53df0485 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -9527,6 +9527,12 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) } else if (class == BPF_STX) { enum bpf_reg_type *prev_dst_type, dst_reg_type; + if (((BPF_MODE(insn->code) != BPF_MEM && + BPF_MODE(insn->code) != BPF_ATOMIC) || insn->imm != 0)) { + verbose(env, "BPF_STX uses reserved fields\n"); + return -EINVAL; + } + if (BPF_MODE(insn->code) == BPF_ATOMIC) { err = check_atomic(env, env->insn_idx, insn); if (err) @@ -9939,13 +9945,6 @@ static int resolve_pseudo_ldimm64(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) return -EINVAL; } - if (BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_STX && - ((BPF_MODE(insn->code) != BPF_MEM && - BPF_MODE(insn->code) != BPF_ATOMIC) || insn->imm != 0)) { - verbose(env, "BPF_STX uses reserved fields\n"); - return -EINVAL; - } - if (insn[0].code == (BPF_LD | BPF_IMM | BPF_DW)) { struct bpf_insn_aux_data *aux; struct bpf_map *map;
I can't find a reason why this code is in resolve_pseudo_ldimm64; since I'll be modifying it in a subsequent commit, tidy it up. Signed-off-by: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com> --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 13 ++++++------- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)