From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, garsilva@embeddedor.com
Cc: ast@kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel: bpf: remove dead code
Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 16:52:24 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5922FB28.5070303@iogearbox.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170522.103800.1354089494827582585.davem@davemloft.net>
On 05/22/2017 04:38 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@embeddedor.com>
> Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 09:07:46 -0500
>
>> Execution cannot reach NET_IP_ALIGN inside the following statement:
>> ip_align = strict ? 2 : NET_IP_ALIGN
>>
>> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1409762
>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <garsilva@embeddedor.com>
>> ---
>> NOTE: variable ip_align could also be removed and use value 2 directly.
>
> Incorrect.
>
> Some platforms define NET_IP_ALIGN to zero, so the code must remain
> as is.
In the check_pkt_ptr_alignment(), when !strict you would already
return earlier from that function.
So, above test in ip_align will always give 2, meaning technically
the patch is correct, although hard-coded value less clean.
Perhaps something like the below to keep intentions more clear (and
it will get resolved during compile time anyway ...):
diff --git a/include/linux/skbuff.h b/include/linux/skbuff.h
index a098d95..3cf1d60 100644
--- a/include/linux/skbuff.h
+++ b/include/linux/skbuff.h
@@ -2297,8 +2297,10 @@ static inline int pskb_network_may_pull(struct sk_buff *skb, unsigned int len)
* Since this trade off varies between architectures, we allow NET_IP_ALIGN
* to be overridden.
*/
+#define NET_IP_ALIGN_DEFAULT 2
+
#ifndef NET_IP_ALIGN
-#define NET_IP_ALIGN 2
+#define NET_IP_ALIGN NET_IP_ALIGN_DEFAULT
#endif
/*
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 1eddb71..61f6aaa 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -812,7 +812,7 @@ static int check_pkt_ptr_alignment(const struct bpf_reg_state *reg,
* we force this to 2 which is universally what architectures use
* when they don't set CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS.
*/
- ip_align = strict ? 2 : NET_IP_ALIGN;
+ ip_align = NET_IP_ALIGN ? : NET_IP_ALIGN_DEFAULT;
if ((ip_align + reg_off + off) % size != 0) {
verbose("misaligned packet access off %d+%d+%d size %d\n",
ip_align, reg_off, off, size);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-05-22 14:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-05-22 14:07 [PATCH] kernel: bpf: remove dead code Gustavo A. R. Silva
2017-05-22 14:38 ` David Miller
2017-05-22 14:51 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
2017-05-22 14:52 ` Daniel Borkmann [this message]
2017-05-22 16:27 ` David Miller
2017-05-22 17:00 ` Daniel Borkmann
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=5922FB28.5070303@iogearbox.net \
--to=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=garsilva@embeddedor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox