@@ -228,6 +228,12 @@ static void bpf_map_key_store(struct bpf_insn_aux_data *aux, u64 state)
(poisoned ? BPF_MAP_KEY_POISON : 0ULL);
}
+static bool bpf_pseudo_call(const struct bpf_insn *insn)
+{
+ return insn->code == (BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL) &&
+ insn->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_CALL;
+}
+
struct bpf_call_arg_meta {
struct bpf_map *map_ptr;
bool raw_mode;
@@ -1486,9 +1492,7 @@ static int check_subprogs(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
/* determine subprog starts. The end is one before the next starts */
for (i = 0; i < insn_cnt; i++) {
- if (insn[i].code != (BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL))
- continue;
- if (insn[i].src_reg != BPF_PSEUDO_CALL)
+ if (!bpf_pseudo_call(insn + i))
continue;
if (!env->bpf_capable) {
verbose(env,
@@ -3074,9 +3078,7 @@ static int check_max_stack_depth(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
continue_func:
subprog_end = subprog[idx + 1].start;
for (; i < subprog_end; i++) {
- if (insn[i].code != (BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL))
- continue;
- if (insn[i].src_reg != BPF_PSEUDO_CALL)
+ if (!bpf_pseudo_call(insn + i))
continue;
/* remember insn and function to return to */
ret_insn[frame] = i + 1;
@@ -10844,8 +10846,7 @@ static int jit_subprogs(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
return 0;
for (i = 0, insn = prog->insnsi; i < prog->len; i++, insn++) {
- if (insn->code != (BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL) ||
- insn->src_reg != BPF_PSEUDO_CALL)
+ if (!bpf_pseudo_call(insn))
continue;
/* Upon error here we cannot fall back to interpreter but
* need a hard reject of the program. Thus -EFAULT is
@@ -10974,8 +10975,7 @@ static int jit_subprogs(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
for (i = 0; i < env->subprog_cnt; i++) {
insn = func[i]->insnsi;
for (j = 0; j < func[i]->len; j++, insn++) {
- if (insn->code != (BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL) ||
- insn->src_reg != BPF_PSEUDO_CALL)
+ if (!bpf_pseudo_call(insn))
continue;
subprog = insn->off;
insn->imm = BPF_CAST_CALL(func[subprog]->bpf_func) -
@@ -11020,8 +11020,7 @@ static int jit_subprogs(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
* later look the same as if they were interpreted only.
*/
for (i = 0, insn = prog->insnsi; i < prog->len; i++, insn++) {
- if (insn->code != (BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL) ||
- insn->src_reg != BPF_PSEUDO_CALL)
+ if (!bpf_pseudo_call(insn))
continue;
insn->off = env->insn_aux_data[i].call_imm;
subprog = find_subprog(env, i + insn->off + 1);
@@ -11050,8 +11049,7 @@ static int jit_subprogs(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
/* cleanup main prog to be interpreted */
prog->jit_requested = 0;
for (i = 0, insn = prog->insnsi; i < prog->len; i++, insn++) {
- if (insn->code != (BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL) ||
- insn->src_reg != BPF_PSEUDO_CALL)
+ if (!bpf_pseudo_call(insn))
continue;
insn->off = 0;
insn->imm = env->insn_aux_data[i].call_imm;
@@ -11086,8 +11084,7 @@ static int fixup_call_args(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
return -EINVAL;
}
for (i = 0; i < prog->len; i++, insn++) {
- if (insn->code != (BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL) ||
- insn->src_reg != BPF_PSEUDO_CALL)
+ if (!bpf_pseudo_call(insn))
continue;
depth = get_callee_stack_depth(env, insn, i);
if (depth < 0)
There is no functionality change. This refactoring intends to facilitate next patch change with BPF_PSEUDO_FUNC. Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com> --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 29 +++++++++++++---------------- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)