Hi Edward,
[auto build test ERROR on net-next/master]
url:
https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Edward-Cree/bpf-rewrite-value-tracking-in-verifier/20170629-012559
config: ia64-allmodconfig (attached as .config)
compiler: ia64-linux-gcc (GCC) 6.2.0
reproduce:
wget
https://raw.gith
On 06/28/2017 06:07 PM, Edward Cree wrote:
On 28/06/17 16:15, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
On 06/27/2017 02:56 PM, Edward Cree wrote:
Tracks value alignment by means of tracking known & unknown bits.
Tightens some min/max value checks and fixes a couple of bugs therein.
You mean the one in relation
On 28/06/17 18:09, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> Could you elaborate on this one? If I understand it correctly, then
> the scalar += pointer case would mean the following: given I have one
> of the allowed pointer types in adjust_ptr_min_max_vals() then the
> prior scalar type inherits the ptr type/id.
On 06/27/2017 02:56 PM, Edward Cree 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 pointer as an unknown scalar a
On 28/06/17 16:15, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 06/27/2017 02:56 PM, Edward Cree wrote:
>> Tracks value alignment by means of tracking known & unknown bits.
>> Tightens some min/max value checks and fixes a couple of bugs therein.
>
> You mean the one in relation to patch 1/12? Would be good to elab
On 06/27/2017 02:56 PM, Edward Cree wrote:
Tracks value alignment by means of tracking known & unknown bits.
Tightens some min/max value checks and fixes a couple of bugs therein.
You mean the one in relation to patch 1/12? Would be good to elaborate
here since otherwise this gets forgotten few
6 matches
Mail list logo
