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
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
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.
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 !=
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
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
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 -=
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.
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
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 ==
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
>
11 matches
Mail list logo