> When doing BPF filter program conversion, a common way
> to zero a register in single instruction is:
> xor r7,r7
> The BPF validator would not allow this because the value of
> r7 was undefined. But after this operation it always zero.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org>
> ---
> lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c | 8 ++++++--
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c b/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c
> index 7b1291b382e9..7647a7454dc2 100644
> --- a/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c
> +++ b/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c
> @@ -661,8 +661,12 @@ eval_alu(struct bpf_verifier *bvf, const struct
> ebpf_insn *ins)
>
> op = BPF_OP(ins->code);
>
> - err = eval_defined((op != EBPF_MOV) ? rd : NULL,
> - (op != BPF_NEG) ? &rs : NULL);
> + /* Allow self-xor as way to zero register */
> + if (op == BPF_XOR && ins->src_reg == ins->dst_reg)
> + err = NULL;
> + else
> + err = eval_defined((op != EBPF_MOV) ? rd : NULL,
> + (op != BPF_NEG) ? &rs : NULL);
Two things:
- We probably need to check that this is instruction with source register (not
imm value).
- rd value is not evaluated to zero, while it probably should
(will help evaluator to better predict further values)
So might be better to do something like:
/* Allow self-xor as way to zero register */
if (op == BPF_XOR && BPF_SRC(ins->code) == BPF_X &&
ins->src_reg == ins->dst_reg) {
eval_fill_imm(&rs, UINT64_MAX, 0);
eval_fill_imm(rd, UINT64_MAX, 0);
}
err = eval_defined((op != EBPF_MOV) ? rd : NULL,
(op != BPF_NEG) ? &rs : NULL);
if (err != NULL)
return err;
...
Another thing - shouldn't that patch be treated like a fix (cc to stable, etc.)?
> if (err != NULL)
> return err;
>
> --
> 2.30.2