From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8331ECAAA3 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2022 22:31:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S237844AbiHYWbo (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Aug 2022 18:31:44 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:44900 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S244430AbiHYWbn (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Aug 2022 18:31:43 -0400 Received: from mail-ed1-x531.google.com (mail-ed1-x531.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::531]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B78EBA154 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2022 15:31:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ed1-x531.google.com with SMTP id b16so71701edd.4 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2022 15:31:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:user-agent:content-transfer-encoding:references :in-reply-to:date:to:from:subject:message-id:from:to:cc; bh=oy6xBGINBua5ZrXOtFEX+0/hoeSsjJfv6Uh4rPqx6Zs=; b=PlibQ+6OtEIDMXRE13OEpiAJS5vXEW1raE7Zui/CaCfc7aU80puY7YEgYwxz/nUnUB TBGBecZd26KB6CemtueVl4JAD2mkdCT6uqwjmRCJ8mz0NZ66aYq7rMlnyLeClfgJ4AjY +RTZYcqQjRArxQuEOOMWNoxMPGmYdEQKr53v75vMx1Nzc7AD+QYFL5s1i2K4o5cJunuu VIp8IDNMDuACHiS+mb/2WVAAnqPymKiTNebbZ0f33+EcINjKPKpT+miZuKSZJax8qW+1 yPig3vXR+hpAnh3MAwYE1oyOEF6RikzG4X2U86/nGhfi1ZkuNYmBzkdX9u//n/hBKxjn h5Gg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=mime-version:user-agent:content-transfer-encoding:references :in-reply-to:date:to:from:subject:message-id:x-gm-message-state:from :to:cc; bh=oy6xBGINBua5ZrXOtFEX+0/hoeSsjJfv6Uh4rPqx6Zs=; b=a5HXy70dAkdjXF77XIz6xaa5NAKozQkaZO9CGCo+Z86piLZC+weldAP/jHrItBjFze XbgoMe+VDf26tBeUujO6chslf72NkPIho98Ry5NtNUiJlXauhs8c5OnrHFlb4S92lm5h dxZZydZmN9YidTDocc0rLLeXR3cfYrG+0o/t6FV320fv+bDEEHoY8DLToAEpM1XjotsM Ada1G64sEfw0yFYXt97bBG9xxCXDswW7uRFvGtgAolL3Ex1NF3tK+FgvPH2Xrnb1KoeS 6NJxUi9qPz3MQ+qNxunlbY/GcsMlMO7Gyt07j+IltdBHlK0lZATDjsDWK/YvD/R2quO3 FEcw== X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo0E3MCXhbXdbGP8yD7b3mUJAiuUVKDcksWnaAXeOdA+otUDeOtb ReFeFZwvX66s7yfYH9GA6D+Xp93Dcig0KnfR X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR6dsCGde5rmzNJ5lFOmwrsKLV1vLeYDIFXKpuiEhQ/8tNIfztgmhNJzN8aUuEwcPvujk77ohQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:5106:b0:440:3693:e67b with SMTP id m6-20020a056402510600b004403693e67bmr4876861edd.226.1661466700869; Thu, 25 Aug 2022 15:31:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.24] (boundsly.muster.volia.net. [93.72.16.93]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a9-20020aa7d749000000b0043e581c30eesm360759eds.31.2022.08.25.15.31.39 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 25 Aug 2022 15:31:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5a14d5c9ca9782741815428f6d580b563ba7f481.camel@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC bpf-next 1/2] bpf: propagate nullness information for reg to reg comparisons From: Eduard Zingerman To: John Fastabend , bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, andrii@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, kernel-team@fb.com, yhs@fb.com Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2022 01:31:38 +0300 In-Reply-To: <630714f155a8_e1c39208a1@john.notmuch> References: <20220822094312.175448-1-eddyz87@gmail.com> <20220822094312.175448-2-eddyz87@gmail.com> <63055fa5a080e_292a8208db@john.notmuch> <630714f155a8_e1c39208a1@john.notmuch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.44.4 (3.44.4-1.fc36) MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org Hi John, > Agree it looks scary I wanted to play around with it more. I agree > its not the same and off to investigate a few places we use > __is_pointer_value now. Might add a few more tests while I'm at it. I think that update to `__is_pointer_value` should probably be done but is unrelated to this patch. And, as you mention, would require crafting some number of test cases for NOT_INIT case :) I'd prefer to keep the current predicate as is and reuse it at some later point in the updated `__is_pointer_value` function. What do you think? Thanks, Eduard