[PATCH bpf-next v4 05/11] bpf: Move BPF_STX reserved field check into BPF_STX verifier code

[Brendan Jackman]

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 <jackm...@google.com>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 13 ++++++-------
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

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;
-- 
2.29.2.576.ga3fc446d84-goog