Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 23 Jun 2022 16:44:28 -0700 | From | John Fastabend <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH] bpf: Replace 0 with BPF_K |
| |
Simon wang wrote: > From: Simon Wang <wangchuanguo@inspur.com> > > Enhance readability. > > Signed-off-by: Simon Wang <wangchuanguo@inspur.com> > --- > kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > index 2859901ffbe3..29060f15daab 100644 > --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > @@ -9064,7 +9064,7 @@ static int check_alu_op(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn) > > if (opcode == BPF_END || opcode == BPF_NEG) { > if (opcode == BPF_NEG) { > - if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) != 0 || > + if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) != BPF_K || > insn->src_reg != BPF_REG_0 || > insn->off != 0 || insn->imm != 0) { > verbose(env, "BPF_NEG uses reserved fields\n"); > -- > 2.27.0 >
Code is fine and seems everywhere else we do this check with
BPF_SRC(insn->code) != BPF_K
One thing though this should have [PATCH bpf-next] in the title so its clear the code is targeted for bpf-next. Although in this case its obvious from the content.
Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
| |