print_bpf_insn() was treating all BPF_ALU[64] the same, but BPF_END has a
different structure: it has a size in insn->imm (even if it's BPF_X) and
uses the BPF_SRC (X or K) to indicate which endianness to use. So it
needs different code to print it.
Signed-off-by: Edward Cree <ec...@solarflare.com>
---
It's not the same format as the new LLVM asm uses, does that matter?
AFAIK the LLVM format doesn't comprehend BPF_TO_LE, just assumes that all
endian ops are necessarily swaps (rather than sometimes nops).
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 13 +++++++++++--
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 799b245..e7657a4 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -331,20 +331,29 @@ static void print_bpf_insn(const struct bpf_verifier_env
*env,
u8 class = BPF_CLASS(insn->code);
if (class == BPF_ALU || class == BPF_ALU64) {
- if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_X)
+ if (BPF_OP(insn->code) == BPF_END) {
+ if (class == BPF_ALU64)
+ verbose("BUG_alu64_%02x\n", insn->code);
+ else
+ verbose("(%02x) (u%d) r%d %s %s\n",
+ insn->code, insn->imm, insn->dst_reg,
+ bpf_alu_string[BPF_END >> 4],
+ BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_X ? "be" :
"le");
+ } else if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_X) {
verbose("(%02x) %sr%d %s %sr%d\n",
insn->code, class == BPF_ALU ? "(u32) " : "",
insn->dst_reg,
bpf_alu_string[BPF_OP(insn->code) >> 4],
class == BPF_ALU ? "(u32) " : "",
insn->src_reg);
- else
+ } else {
verbose("(%02x) %sr%d %s %s%d\n",
insn->code, class == BPF_ALU ? "(u32) " : "",
insn->dst_reg,
bpf_alu_string[BPF_OP(insn->code) >> 4],
class == BPF_ALU ? "(u32) " : "",
insn->imm);
+ }
} else if (class == BPF_STX) {
if (BPF_MODE(insn->code) == BPF_MEM)
verbose("(%02x) *(%s *)(r%d %+d) = r%d\n",
