From: KP Singh <kpsingh@chromium.org>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org>,
Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 4/7] bpf: Attachment verification for BPF_MODIFY_RETURN
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2020 02:06:15 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200304010615.GA14634@chromium.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200304000326.nk7jmkgxazl3umbh@ast-mbp>
On 03-Mär 16:03, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 12:21:51AM +0100, KP Singh wrote:
> >
> > > > + t = btf_type_skip_modifiers(btf, t->type, NULL);
> > > > + if (!btf_type_is_int(t)) {
> > >
> > > Should the size of int be verified here? E.g., if some function
> > > returns u8, is that ok for BPF program to return, say, (1<<30) ?
> >
> > Would this work?
> >
> > if (size != t->size) {
> > bpf_log(log,
> > "size accessed = %d should be %d\n",
> > size, t->size);
> > return false;
> > }
>
> It will cause spurious failures later when llvm optimizes
> if (ret & 0xff) into u8 load.
> I think btf_type_is_int() is enough as-is.
Okay skipping the size check.
- KP
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-04 1:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-03 14:09 [PATCH bpf-next 0/7] Introduce BPF_MODIFY_RET tracing progs KP Singh
2020-03-03 14:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/7] bpf: Refactor trampoline update code KP Singh
2020-03-03 22:12 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-03-03 22:24 ` KP Singh
2020-03-03 23:03 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-03-03 23:08 ` KP Singh
2020-03-03 14:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/7] bpf: JIT helpers for fmod_ret progs KP Singh
2020-03-03 22:26 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-03-03 22:28 ` KP Singh
2020-03-03 23:56 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-03-04 1:26 ` KP Singh
2020-03-03 14:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next 3/7] bpf: Introduce BPF_MODIFY_RETURN KP Singh
2020-03-03 22:37 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-03-03 22:51 ` KP Singh
2020-03-03 14:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next 4/7] bpf: Attachment verification for BPF_MODIFY_RETURN KP Singh
2020-03-03 22:44 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-03-03 23:21 ` KP Singh
2020-03-04 0:03 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-03-04 1:06 ` KP Singh [this message]
2020-03-03 14:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next 5/7] tools/libbpf: Add support " KP Singh
2020-03-03 22:45 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-03-03 14:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next 6/7] bpf: Add test ops for BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING KP Singh
2020-03-03 22:51 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-03-03 22:57 ` KP Singh
2020-03-03 14:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next 7/7] bpf: Add selftests for BPF_MODIFY_RETURN KP Singh
2020-03-03 22:58 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-03-03 22:12 ` [PATCH bpf-next 0/7] Introduce BPF_MODIFY_RET tracing progs Andrii Nakryiko
2020-03-03 22:25 ` KP Singh
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200304010615.GA14634@chromium.org \
--to=kpsingh@chromium.org \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=jackmanb@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=revest@chromium.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.