On 8/22/17 11:03 AM, Edward Cree wrote:
On 22/08/17 16:50, Edward Cree wrote:
On 22/08/17 16:24, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
Do you have a test case for this by any chance?
I think something like
if (cond)
r0=0;
if (cond)
r0=0;
return r0;
might tickle the bug, but I'm
On 22/08/17 16:50, Edward Cree wrote:
> On 22/08/17 16:24, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> Do you have a test case for this by any chance?
> I think something like
> if (cond)
> r0=0;
> if (cond)
> r0=0;
> return r0;
> might tickle the bug, but I'm not sure.
It turns out th
On 22/08/17 16:24, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On 8/22/17 6:27 AM, Edward Cree wrote:
>> The fact that writes occurred in reaching the continuation state does
>> not screen off its reads from us, because we're not really its parent.
>> So detect 'not really the parent' in do_propagate_liveness, an
On 8/22/17 6:27 AM, Edward Cree wrote:
The fact that writes occurred in reaching the continuation state does
not screen off its reads from us, because we're not really its parent.
So detect 'not really the parent' in do_propagate_liveness, and ignore
write marks in that case.
Fixes: dc503a8ad9
The fact that writes occurred in reaching the continuation state does
not screen off its reads from us, because we're not really its parent.
So detect 'not really the parent' in do_propagate_liveness, and ignore
write marks in that case.
Fixes: dc503a8ad984 ("bpf/verifier: track liveness for pru
