Daniel Borkmann wrote:
Since we've changed div/mod exception handling for src_reg in
eBPF verifier itself, remove the leftovers from ppc64 JIT.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <dan...@iogearbox.net>
Cc: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n....@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
 arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c | 8 --------
 1 file changed, 8 deletions(-)

Probably too late, but none the less:
Acked-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n....@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Thanks,
Naveen


diff --git a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c 
b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
index 217a78e..0a34b0c 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
@@ -381,10 +381,6 @@ static int bpf_jit_build_body(struct bpf_prog *fp, u32 
*image,
                        goto bpf_alu32_trunc;
                case BPF_ALU | BPF_DIV | BPF_X: /* (u32) dst /= (u32) src */
                case BPF_ALU | BPF_MOD | BPF_X: /* (u32) dst %= (u32) src */
-                       PPC_CMPWI(src_reg, 0);
-                       PPC_BCC_SHORT(COND_NE, (ctx->idx * 4) + 12);
-                       PPC_LI(b2p[BPF_REG_0], 0);
-                       PPC_JMP(exit_addr);
                        if (BPF_OP(code) == BPF_MOD) {
                                PPC_DIVWU(b2p[TMP_REG_1], dst_reg, src_reg);
                                PPC_MULW(b2p[TMP_REG_1], src_reg,
@@ -395,10 +391,6 @@ static int bpf_jit_build_body(struct bpf_prog *fp, u32 
*image,
                        goto bpf_alu32_trunc;
                case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_DIV | BPF_X: /* dst /= src */
                case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOD | BPF_X: /* dst %= src */
-                       PPC_CMPDI(src_reg, 0);
-                       PPC_BCC_SHORT(COND_NE, (ctx->idx * 4) + 12);
-                       PPC_LI(b2p[BPF_REG_0], 0);
-                       PPC_JMP(exit_addr);
                        if (BPF_OP(code) == BPF_MOD) {
                                PPC_DIVD(b2p[TMP_REG_1], dst_reg, src_reg);
                                PPC_MULD(b2p[TMP_REG_1], src_reg,
--
2.9.5



Reply via email to