On 5/8/15 8:17 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
Ok, I plan to apply the patch below for 4.1.
great catch. Looks good to me.
Xi, could you send a separate patch for test_bpf update to net-next?
Thanks!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
t.
Ok, I plan to apply the patch below for 4.1.
Will
--->8
>From 1e4df6b7208140f3c49f316d33a409d3a161f350 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Xi Wang
Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 06:39:51 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] arm64: bpf: fix signedness bug in loading 64-bit immediate
Consider "(u64)insn1.imm &
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 1:38 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>> - imm64 = (u64)insn1.imm << 32 | imm;
>> + imm64 = ((u64)(u32)insn1.imm) << 32 | (u64)(u32)imm;
>
> This seems a bit convoluted to me. Don't you just need to add a (u32)
> cast to imm and that's it? The (u64)(u32) looks
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 06:39:51AM +0100, Xi Wang wrote:
> Consider "(u64)insn1.imm << 32 | imm" in the arm64 JIT. Since imm is
> signed 32-bit, it is sign-extended to 64-bit, losing the high 32 bits.
> The fix is to convert imm to u32 first and zero-extend it to u64.
>
> Also extend test_bpf to
Consider "(u64)insn1.imm << 32 | imm" in the arm64 JIT. Since imm is
signed 32-bit, it is sign-extended to 64-bit, losing the high 32 bits.
The fix is to convert imm to u32 first and zero-extend it to u64.
Also extend test_bpf to catch this JIT bug; the interpreter is correct.
Before:
test_bpf:
5 matches
Mail list logo
