From: Edward Cree <ecree@solarflare.com>
To: <davem@davemloft.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@fb.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Cc: <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
iovisor-dev <iovisor-dev@lists.iovisor.org>
Subject: [PATCH v4 net-next 04/13] bpf/verifier: more concise register state logs for constant var_off
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 17:12:38 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <695e6ddf-067a-b347-d9ef-283582ae6955@solarflare.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <22441d84-0a11-5c00-2d2a-25e7dbafa6c2@solarflare.com>
Signed-off-by: Edward Cree <ecree@solarflare.com>
---
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index ca14f59..2924b01 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -234,25 +234,33 @@ static void print_verifier_state(struct bpf_verifier_state *state)
verbose(",ks=%d,vs=%d",
reg->map_ptr->key_size,
reg->map_ptr->value_size);
- if (reg->smin_value != reg->umin_value &&
- reg->smin_value != S64_MIN)
- verbose(",smin_value=%lld",
- (long long)reg->smin_value);
- if (reg->smax_value != reg->umax_value &&
- reg->smax_value != S64_MAX)
- verbose(",smax_value=%lld",
- (long long)reg->smax_value);
- if (reg->umin_value != 0)
- verbose(",umin_value=%llu",
- (unsigned long long)reg->umin_value);
- if (reg->umax_value != U64_MAX)
- verbose(",umax_value=%llu",
- (unsigned long long)reg->umax_value);
- if (!tnum_is_unknown(reg->var_off)) {
- char tn_buf[48];
-
- tnum_strn(tn_buf, sizeof(tn_buf), reg->var_off);
- verbose(",var_off=%s", tn_buf);
+ if (tnum_is_const(reg->var_off)) {
+ /* Typically an immediate SCALAR_VALUE, but
+ * could be a pointer whose offset is too big
+ * for reg->off
+ */
+ verbose(",imm=%llx", reg->var_off.value);
+ } else {
+ if (reg->smin_value != reg->umin_value &&
+ reg->smin_value != S64_MIN)
+ verbose(",smin_value=%lld",
+ (long long)reg->smin_value);
+ if (reg->smax_value != reg->umax_value &&
+ reg->smax_value != S64_MAX)
+ verbose(",smax_value=%lld",
+ (long long)reg->smax_value);
+ if (reg->umin_value != 0)
+ verbose(",umin_value=%llu",
+ (unsigned long long)reg->umin_value);
+ if (reg->umax_value != U64_MAX)
+ verbose(",umax_value=%llu",
+ (unsigned long long)reg->umax_value);
+ if (!tnum_is_unknown(reg->var_off)) {
+ char tn_buf[48];
+
+ tnum_strn(tn_buf, sizeof(tn_buf), reg->var_off);
+ verbose(",var_off=%s", tn_buf);
+ }
}
verbose(")");
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-08-03 16:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-08-03 16:07 [PATCH v4 net-next 00/13] bpf: rewrite value tracking in verifier Edward Cree
2017-08-03 16:11 ` [PATCH v4 net-next 01/13] bpf/verifier: rework value tracking Edward Cree
2017-08-06 23:35 ` Daniel Borkmann
2017-08-07 12:39 ` Edward Cree
2017-08-03 16:11 ` [PATCH v4 net-next 02/13] nfp: change bpf verifier hooks to match new verifier data structures Edward Cree
2017-08-07 4:01 ` David Miller
2017-08-03 16:12 ` [PATCH v4 net-next 03/13] bpf/verifier: track signed and unsigned min/max values Edward Cree
2017-08-03 16:12 ` Edward Cree [this message]
2017-08-03 16:12 ` [PATCH v4 net-next 05/13] selftests/bpf: change test_verifier expectations Edward Cree
2017-08-03 16:13 ` [PATCH v4 net-next 06/13] selftests/bpf: rewrite test_align Edward Cree
2017-08-03 16:13 ` [PATCH v4 net-next 07/13] selftests/bpf: add a test to test_align Edward Cree
2017-08-03 16:14 ` [PATCH v4 net-next 08/13] selftests/bpf: add test for bogus operations on pointers Edward Cree
2017-08-03 16:14 ` [PATCH v4 net-next 09/13] selftests/bpf: don't try to access past MAX_PACKET_OFF in test_verifier Edward Cree
2017-08-03 16:15 ` [PATCH v4 net-next 10/13] selftests/bpf: add tests for subtraction & negative numbers Edward Cree
2017-08-03 16:15 ` [PATCH v4 net-next 11/13] selftests/bpf: variable offset negative tests Edward Cree
2017-08-03 16:15 ` [PATCH v4 net-next 12/13] Documentation: describe the new eBPF verifier value tracking behaviour Edward Cree
2017-08-03 16:16 ` [PATCH v4 net-next 13/13] bpf/verifier: increase complexity limit to 128k Edward Cree
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=695e6ddf-067a-b347-d9ef-283582ae6955@solarflare.com \
--to=ecree@solarflare.com \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=ast@fb.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=iovisor-dev@lists.iovisor.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).