Quoting Daniel Borkmann (2021-02-26 17:00:58)
> Applied, thanks!
You're welcome!
...so callers can correctly detect failure.
Signed-off-by: Ian Denhardt
---
tools/bpf/bpf_exp.y | 8
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/bpf/bpf_exp.y b/tools/bpf/bpf_exp.y
index 8d03e5245da5..dfb7254a24e8 100644
--- a/tools/bpf/bpf_exp.y
+++ b/tools/bpf
were only speculation.
Signed-off-by: Ian Denhardt
Acked-by: Ilya Leoshkevich
---
tools/bpf/bpf_exp.y | 6 --
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/bpf/bpf_exp.y b/tools/bpf/bpf_exp.y
index 8d48e896be50..8d03e5245da5 100644
--- a/tools/bpf/bpf_exp.y
+++ b/tools
Gah, managed to typo my own name in the v2 patch >.<
This one should be good :/
Ian Denhardt (2):
tools, bpf_asm: Hard error on out of range jumps.
tools, bpf_asm: exit non-zero on errors.
tools/bpf/bpf_exp.y | 14 --
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
--
2.30.1
...so callers can correctly detect failure.
Signed-off-by: Ian Denhardt
---
tools/bpf/bpf_exp.y | 8
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/bpf/bpf_exp.y b/tools/bpf/bpf_exp.y
index 8d03e5245da5..dfb7254a24e8 100644
--- a/tools/bpf/bpf_exp.y
+++ b/tools/bpf
Second pass at the patches from:
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/ef747c45-a68c-2a87-202c-5fd9faf70...@iogearbox.net/T/#t.
Patches are the same, this just addes the Signed-off-by: lines
as requested by Daniel Borkmann
Ian Denhardt (2):
tools, bpf_asm: Hard error on out of range jumps.
tools
Per discussion at:
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/c964892195a6b91d20a67691448567ef528ffa6d.ca...@linux.ibm.com/T/#t
...this was originally introduced as a warning due to concerns about
breaking existing code, but a hard error probably makes more sense,
especially given that concerns about breakage w
...so callers can correctly detect failure.
---
tools/bpf/bpf_exp.y | 8
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/bpf/bpf_exp.y b/tools/bpf/bpf_exp.y
index 8d03e5245da5..dfb7254a24e8 100644
--- a/tools/bpf/bpf_exp.y
+++ b/tools/bpf/bpf_exp.y
@@ -185,13 +185,13 @
Per discussion at:
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/c964892195a6b91d20a67691448567ef528ffa6d.ca...@linux.ibm.com/T/#t
...this was originally introduced as a warning due to concerns about
breaking existing code, but a hard error probably makes more sense,
especially given that concerns about breakage w
them together.
-Ian
Ian Denhardt (2):
tools, bpf_asm: Hard error on out of range jumps.
tools, bpf_asm: exit non-zero on errors.
tools/bpf/bpf_exp.y | 14 --
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
--
2.30.1
Hi,
I'm using the `bpf_asm` tool to do some syscall filtering, and found out
the hard way that its error checking isn't very strict. In particular,
it issues a warning (not an error) when a jump offset overflows the
instruction's field. It really seems like this *ought* to be a hard
error, but I s
11 matches
Mail list logo