Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] bpf, arm32: Correct check_imm24 | From | Daniel Borkmann <> | Date | Fri, 25 May 2018 15:47:59 +0200 |
| |
On 05/11/2018 05:06 AM, Wang YanQing wrote: > imm24 is signed, so the right range is: > [-(1<<(24 - 1)), (1<<(24 - 1)) - 1] > > Note:this patch also fix a typo. > > Signed-off-by: Wang YanQing <udknight@gmail.com>
Through which tree will this fix be routed? (And the cleanup in "[PATCH v2] bpf, arm32: Fix inconsistent naming about emit_a32_lsr_r64|emit_a32_lsr_i64"?) Wasn't fully clear from the subject in the patch whether target are bpf trees.
If this one here should go as a fix via bpf tree, would be great to get an ACK from Russell.
Just asking since I haven't seen it in Linus' tree and it's been two weeks by now, so making sure it's not getting lost in the archives. ;-)
> --- > Changes > v1-v2: > 1:Rewrite the patch, I make a mistake, the v1 is wrong totally, > reported by Russell King. > > I use the fix suggested by Russell King instead of myself which > use the exact number range [-8388608, 8388607]. > 2:Fix the error in changelog. > > Thanks! > > arch/arm/net/bpf_jit_32.c | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/net/bpf_jit_32.c b/arch/arm/net/bpf_jit_32.c > index caccc78..316bc08 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/net/bpf_jit_32.c > +++ b/arch/arm/net/bpf_jit_32.c > @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ > * > * 1. First argument is passed using the arm 32bit registers and rest of the > * arguments are passed on stack scratch space. > - * 2. First callee-saved arugument is mapped to arm 32 bit registers and rest > + * 2. First callee-saved argument is mapped to arm 32 bit registers and rest > * arguments are mapped to scratch space on stack. > * 3. We need two 64 bit temp registers to do complex operations on eBPF > * registers. > @@ -1199,8 +1199,8 @@ static int build_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct jit_ctx *ctx) > s32 jmp_offset; > > #define check_imm(bits, imm) do { \ > - if ((((imm) > 0) && ((imm) >> (bits))) || \ > - (((imm) < 0) && (~(imm) >> (bits)))) { \ > + if ((imm) >= (1 << ((bits) - 1)) || \ > + (imm) < -(1 << ((bits) - 1))) { \ > pr_info("[%2d] imm=%d(0x%x) out of range\n", \ > i, imm, imm); \ > return -EINVAL; \ >
| |