From: Daniel Borkmann
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 18:21:50 +0200
> On 05/10/2017 05:57 PM, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Daniel Borkmann
>> Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 17:51:50 +0200
>>
>>> Would probably be good nevertheless to have this as a flag for
>>> program loads, which gets then passed through to t
On 05/10/2017 05:57 PM, David Miller wrote:
From: Daniel Borkmann
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 17:51:50 +0200
Would probably be good nevertheless to have this as a flag for
program loads, which gets then passed through to the verifier to
explicitly enable strict alignment checks.
Might certainly ai
On 5/10/17 8:57 AM, David Miller wrote:
From: Daniel Borkmann
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 17:51:50 +0200
Would probably be good nevertheless to have this as a flag for
program loads, which gets then passed through to the verifier to
explicitly enable strict alignment checks.
Might certainly aide d
From: Daniel Borkmann
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 17:51:50 +0200
> Would probably be good nevertheless to have this as a flag for
> program loads, which gets then passed through to the verifier to
> explicitly enable strict alignment checks.
>
> Might certainly aide developing & testing programs on a
On 05/10/2017 05:33 PM, David Miller wrote:
From: Alexei Starovoitov
Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 22:57:37 -0700
On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 02:32:34PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
+static u32 calc_align(u32 imm)
+{
+ u32 align = 1;
+
+ if (!imm)
+ return 1U << 31;
+
+ whi
From: Alexei Starovoitov
Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 22:57:37 -0700
> On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 02:32:34PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
>>
>> +static u32 calc_align(u32 imm)
>> +{
>> +u32 align = 1;
>> +
>> +if (!imm)
>> +return 1U << 31;
>> +
>> +while (!(imm & 1)) {
>> +
From: Alexei Starovoitov
> Sent: 10 May 2017 06:58
> > +static u32 calc_align(u32 imm)
> > +{
> > + u32 align = 1;
> > +
> > + if (!imm)
> > + return 1U << 31;
> > +
> > + while (!(imm & 1)) {
> > + imm >>= 1;
> > + align <<= 1;
> > + }
> > + return align;
>
On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 02:32:34PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
>
> +static u32 calc_align(u32 imm)
> +{
> + u32 align = 1;
> +
> + if (!imm)
> + return 1U << 31;
> +
> + while (!(imm & 1)) {
> + imm >>= 1;
> + align <<= 1;
> + }
> + return al
From: Daniel Borkmann
Date: Mon, 08 May 2017 12:49:25 +0200
> Could you also add test cases specifically to this for test_verifier
> in bpf selftests? I'm thinking of the cases when we have no pkt id
> and offset originated from reg->off (accumulated through const imm
> ops on reg) and insn->off,
On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 10:47:09PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> From: David Miller
> Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 16:20:44 -0400 (EDT)
>
> > Anyways, I'll play with this design and see what happens...
> > Feedback is of course welcome.
>
> Here is a prototype that works for me with test_pkt_access.c,
From: Daniel Borkmann
Date: Mon, 08 May 2017 12:49:25 +0200
> On 05/06/2017 04:47 AM, David Miller wrote:
>> From: David Miller
>> Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 16:20:44 -0400 (EDT)
>>
>>> Anyways, I'll play with this design and see what happens...
>>> Feedback is of course welcome.
>>
>> Here is a pro
On 05/06/2017 04:47 AM, David Miller wrote:
From: David Miller
Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 16:20:44 -0400 (EDT)
Anyways, I'll play with this design and see what happens...
Feedback is of course welcome.
Here is a prototype that works for me with test_pkt_access.c,
which otherwise won't load on sp
From: David Miller
Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 16:20:44 -0400 (EDT)
> Anyways, I'll play with this design and see what happens...
> Feedback is of course welcome.
Here is a prototype that works for me with test_pkt_access.c,
which otherwise won't load on sparc.
diff --git a/include/linux/bpf_verifie
Alexei and Daniel, I just wanted to let you guys know that I'm working
on an alignment tracker in the BPF verifier.
After trying several approaches I think what is going to work is to
maintain state like this:
1) For non-pointer registers, we record what we can prove is the
minimum alignment
14 matches
Mail list logo
