From: Alexei Starovoitov
> Sent: 06 January 2016 22:13
> On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 09:31:27PM +0100, Rabin Vincent wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 09:55:58AM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > this one is better to be addressed in verifier instead of eBPF JITs.
> > > Please reject it in
On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 09:31:27PM +0100, Rabin Vincent wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 09:55:58AM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > this one is better to be addressed in verifier instead of eBPF JITs.
> > Please reject it in check_alu_op() instead.
>
> AFAICS the eBPF verifier is not called
On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 09:55:58AM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> this one is better to be addressed in verifier instead of eBPF JITs.
> Please reject it in check_alu_op() instead.
AFAICS the eBPF verifier is not called on the eBPF filters generated by
the BPF->eBPF conversion in
On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 06:39:03PM +0100, Rabin Vincent wrote:
> Attempting to generate UBFM/SBFM instructions with shifts that can't be
> encoded in the immediate fields of the opcodes leads to a trigger of a
> BUG() in the instruction generation code. As the ARMv8 ARM says: "The
> shift amounts
