On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 02:47:22PM +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
> On 05/09/18 03:23, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > So would you agree it's fair to add
> > Fixes: f1174f77b50c ("bpf/verifier: rework value tracking")
> > ?
> Sure. Though I don't think it needs backporting, as it's a conservative
>
On 05/09/18 03:23, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> So would you agree it's fair to add
> Fixes: f1174f77b50c ("bpf/verifier: rework value tracking")
> ?
Sure. Though I don't think it needs backporting, as it's a conservative
bug (i.e. it merely prevents pruning, but that's safe security-wise).
> How
On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 03:19:52PM +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
> In check_mem_access(), for the PTR_TO_CTX case, after check_ctx_access()
> has supplied a reg_type, the other members of the register state are set
> appropriately. Previously reg.range was set to 0, but as it is in a
> union with
In check_mem_access(), for the PTR_TO_CTX case, after check_ctx_access()
has supplied a reg_type, the other members of the register state are set
appropriately. Previously reg.range was set to 0, but as it is in a
union with reg.map_ptr, which is larger, upper bytes of the latter were
left in
