Netdev List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
To: ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, john.fastabend@gmail.com
Subject: [bpf-next PATCH 1/2] bpf, verifier: Remove redundant var_off.value ops in scalar known reg cases
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 11:45:06 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <160097310597.12106.6191783180902126213.stgit@john-Precision-5820-Tower> (raw)

In BPF_AND and BPF_OR alu cases we have this pattern when the src and dst
tnum is a constant.

 1 dst_reg->var_off = tnum_[op](dst_reg->var_off, src_reg.var_off)
 2 scalar32_min_max_[op]
 3       if (known) return
 4 scalar_min_max_[op]
 5       if (known)
 6          __mark_reg_known(dst_reg,
                   dst_reg->var_off.value [op] src_reg.var_off.value)

The result is in 1 we calculate the var_off value and store it in the
dst_reg. Then in 6 we duplicate this logic doing the op again on the
value.

The duplication comes from the the tnum_[op] handlers because they have
already done the value calcuation. For example this is tnum_and().

 struct tnum tnum_and(struct tnum a, struct tnum b)
 {
	u64 alpha, beta, v;

	alpha = a.value | a.mask;
	beta = b.value | b.mask;
	v = a.value & b.value;
	return TNUM(v, alpha & beta & ~v);
 }

So lets remove the redundant op calculation. Its confusing for readers
and unnecessary. Its also not harmful because those ops have the
property, r1 & r1 = r1 and r1 | r1 = r1.

Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c |    6 ++----
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 15ab889b0a3f..33fcc18fdd39 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -5818,8 +5818,7 @@ static void scalar_min_max_and(struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg,
 	u64 umax_val = src_reg->umax_value;
 
 	if (src_known && dst_known) {
-		__mark_reg_known(dst_reg, dst_reg->var_off.value &
-					  src_reg->var_off.value);
+		__mark_reg_known(dst_reg, dst_reg->var_off.value);
 		return;
 	}
 
@@ -5889,8 +5888,7 @@ static void scalar_min_max_or(struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg,
 	u64 umin_val = src_reg->umin_value;
 
 	if (src_known && dst_known) {
-		__mark_reg_known(dst_reg, dst_reg->var_off.value |
-					  src_reg->var_off.value);
+		__mark_reg_known(dst_reg, dst_reg->var_off.value);
 		return;
 	}
 


             reply	other threads:[~2020-09-24 18:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-09-24 18:45 John Fastabend [this message]
2020-09-24 18:45 ` [bpf-next PATCH 2/2] bpf: Add AND verifier test case where 32bit and 64bit bounds differ John Fastabend
2020-09-25 23:56 ` [bpf-next PATCH 1/2] bpf, verifier: Remove redundant var_off.value ops in scalar known reg cases Alexei Starovoitov
2020-09-26  4:36   ` John Fastabend

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=160097310597.12106.6191783180902126213.stgit@john-Precision-5820-Tower \
    --to=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --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