Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Fri, 27 Nov 2020 17:57:31 +0000 | Subject | [PATCH v2 bpf-next 06/13] bpf: Move BPF_STX reserved field check into BPF_STX verifier code | From | Brendan Jackman <> |
| |
I can't find a reason why this code is in resolve_pseudo_ldimm64; since I'll be modifying it in a subsequent commit, tidy it up.
Signed-off-by: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com> --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 13 ++++++------- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 1947da617b03..e8b41ccdfb90 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -9501,6 +9501,12 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) } else if (class == BPF_STX) { enum bpf_reg_type *prev_dst_type, dst_reg_type; + if (((BPF_MODE(insn->code) != BPF_MEM && + BPF_MODE(insn->code) != BPF_ATOMIC) || insn->imm != 0)) { + verbose(env, "BPF_STX uses reserved fields\n"); + return -EINVAL; + } + if (BPF_MODE(insn->code) == BPF_ATOMIC) { err = check_atomic(env, env->insn_idx, insn); if (err) @@ -9910,13 +9916,6 @@ static int resolve_pseudo_ldimm64(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) return -EINVAL; } - if (BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_STX && - ((BPF_MODE(insn->code) != BPF_MEM && - BPF_MODE(insn->code) != BPF_ATOMIC) || insn->imm != 0)) { - verbose(env, "BPF_STX uses reserved fields\n"); - return -EINVAL; - } - if (insn[0].code == (BPF_LD | BPF_IMM | BPF_DW)) { struct bpf_insn_aux_data *aux; struct bpf_map *map; -- 2.29.2.454.gaff20da3a2-goog
| |