On 05/06/17 08:06, Y Song wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Edward Cree wrote:
>> Test "helper access to variable memory: stack, bitwise AND + JMP, correct
>> bounds" is listed as expected to pass, but it passes zero in the 'size'
>> argument, an ARG_CONST_SIZE, to bpf_probe_read; I belie
On 05/06/17 19:47, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 11:11:05AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> Do you have an asm test case that demonstrates that?
> From here we want to exploit the fact that false_reg->min_value is not
> necessarily correct, but in order to do that we need to get
On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 11:11:05AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On 6/2/17 7:42 AM, Edward Cree wrote:
> >Also, I feel I haven't fully understood the semantics of {min,max}_value and
> > signed vs. unsigned comparisons. It seems that currently reg_set_min_max
> > [_inv] assumes that any given
On 6/2/17 7:42 AM, Edward Cree wrote:
Also, I feel I haven't fully understood the semantics of {min,max}_value and
signed vs. unsigned comparisons. It seems that currently reg_set_min_max
[_inv] assumes that any given register-value will either only be used as
signed, or only be used as unsig
On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Edward Cree wrote:
> A couple of the tests in tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c seem to
> be bogus: Test "multiple registers share map_lookup_elem bad reg type" is
> supposed to
> error with "R3 invalid mem access 'inv'", but from my reading of it, R3 g
A couple of the tests in tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c seem to be
bogus: Test "multiple registers share map_lookup_elem bad reg type" is supposed
to
error with "R3 invalid mem access 'inv'", but from my reading of it, R3 gets
loaded with a map_value_or_null, that later gets null-c
