Re: [iovisor-dev] [PATCH v3 net-next 02/12] bpf/verifier: rework value tracking

Edward Cree via iovisor-dev wrote: > Tracks value alignment by means of tracking known & unknown bits. > Tightens some min/max value checks and fixes a couple of bugs therein. > If pointer leaks are allowed, and adjust_ptr_min_max_vals returns -EACCES, > treat the

Re: [iovisor-dev] [PATCH v3 net-next 02/12] bpf/verifier: rework value tracking

Edward Cree via iovisor-dev wrote: > Tracks value alignment by means of tracking known & unknown bits. > Tightens some min/max value checks and fixes a couple of bugs therein. > If pointer leaks are allowed, and adjust_ptr_min_max_vals returns -EACCES, > treat the

Re: [iovisor-dev] [PATCH v3 net-next 00/12] bpf: rewrite value tracking in verifier

On 04/07/17 23:28, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > Have you tried with cilium's BPF code? The kernel selftests are quite small, > so not really pushing processed insns too far. I can send you a BPF obj file > if that's easier for testing. Results from the next (in-progress) version of the patch series,

Re: [iovisor-dev] [PATCH v3 net-next 00/12] bpf: rewrite value tracking in verifier

On 04/07/17 20:22, Edward Cree wrote: > I don't know why test_l4lb has to process _fewer_ insns with my patches; > if anything I'm worrying that I may be incorrectly pruning branches. > (I've spotted a possible bug in that I'm not looking at 'id' which, > although it doesn't have to match, if