From: Daniel Borkmann
Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 23:27:20 +0200
> On 05/23/2017 09:45 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> On 5/23/17 7:41 AM, Edward Cree wrote:
>>> Hmm, that means that we can't do arithmetic on a
>>> PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL, we have to convert it to a PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE
>>> first by N
On 5/24/17 6:46 AM, Edward Cree wrote:
On 23/05/17 22:27, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
On 05/23/2017 09:45 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On 5/23/17 7:41 AM, Edward Cree wrote:
Hmm, that means that we can't do arithmetic on a
PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL, we have to convert it to a PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE
fir
On 23/05/17 22:27, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 05/23/2017 09:45 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> On 5/23/17 7:41 AM, Edward Cree wrote:
>>> Hmm, that means that we can't do arithmetic on a
>>> PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL, we have to convert it to a PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE
>>> first by NULL-checking it. Th
On 5/23/17 10:43 AM, Edward Cree wrote:
Another issue: it looks like the min/max_value handling for subtraction is
bogus. In adjust_reg_min_max_vals() we have
if (dst_reg->min_value != BPF_REGISTER_MIN_RANGE)
dst_reg->min_value -= min_val;
if (dst_reg->max_value != BPF_REGISTER_
On 05/23/2017 09:45 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On 5/23/17 7:41 AM, Edward Cree wrote:
I'm still plugging away at this... it's going to be quite a big patch and
rewrite a lot of stuff (and I'm not sure I'll be able to break it into
smaller bisectable patches).
And of course I have more quest
On 5/23/17 7:41 AM, Edward Cree wrote:
I'm still plugging away at this... it's going to be quite a big patch and
rewrite a lot of stuff (and I'm not sure I'll be able to break it into
smaller bisectable patches).
And of course I have more questions. In check_packet_ptr_add(), we
forbid adding
Another issue: it looks like the min/max_value handling for subtraction is
bogus. In adjust_reg_min_max_vals() we have
if (dst_reg->min_value != BPF_REGISTER_MIN_RANGE)
dst_reg->min_value -= min_val;
if (dst_reg->max_value != BPF_REGISTER_MAX_RANGE)
dst_reg->max_value -= m
I'm still plugging away at this... it's going to be quite a big patch and
rewrite a lot of stuff (and I'm not sure I'll be able to break it into
smaller bisectable patches).
And of course I have more questions. In check_packet_ptr_add(), we
forbid adding a negative constant to a packet ptr. Is
On 05/19/2017 10:39 PM, David Miller wrote:
From: Edward Cree
Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 21:00:13 +0100
Well, I've managed to get somewhat confused by reg->id.
In particular, I'm unsure which bpf_reg_types can have an id, and what
exactly it means. There seems to be some code that checks around
From: Edward Cree
Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 21:00:13 +0100
> Here's what I'm thinking of doing:
> struct bpf_reg_state {
> enum bpf_reg_type type;
> union {
> /* valid when type == PTR_TO_PACKET */
> u16 range;
>
> /* valid when type == CONST_PTR_TO_MAP | PTR_TO_MAP_
From: Edward Cree
Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 21:00:13 +0100
> Well, I've managed to get somewhat confused by reg->id.
> In particular, I'm unsure which bpf_reg_types can have an id, and what
> exactly it means. There seems to be some code that checks around map value
> pointers, which seems strang
Well, I've managed to get somewhat confused by reg->id.
In particular, I'm unsure which bpf_reg_types can have an id, and what
exactly it means. There seems to be some code that checks around map value
pointers, which seems strange as maps have fixed sizes (and the comments in
enum bpf_reg_type
12 matches
Mail list logo
