On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 08:15:49PM -0800, Yonghong Song wrote:
>
>
> On 11/27/20 9:57 AM, Brendan Jackman wrote:
[...]
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > index e8b41ccdfb90..cd4c03b25573 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > @@ -3602,7 +3602,11 @@ static int check_atomic(struct bpf_verifier_env
> > *env, int insn_idx, struct bpf_i
> > {
> > int err;
> > - if (insn->imm != BPF_ADD) {
> > + switch (insn->imm) {
> > + case BPF_ADD:
> > + case BPF_ADD | BPF_FETCH:
> > + break;
> > + default:
> > verbose(env, "BPF_ATOMIC uses invalid atomic opcode %02x\n",
> > insn->imm);
> > return -EINVAL;
> > }
> > @@ -3631,7 +3635,7 @@ static int check_atomic(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
> > int insn_idx, struct bpf_i
> > is_pkt_reg(env, insn->dst_reg) ||
> > is_flow_key_reg(env, insn->dst_reg) ||
> > is_sk_reg(env, insn->dst_reg)) {
> > - verbose(env, "atomic stores into R%d %s is not allowed\n",
> > + verbose(env, "BPF_ATOMIC stores into R%d %s is not allowed\n",
> > insn->dst_reg,
> > reg_type_str[reg_state(env, insn->dst_reg)->type]);
> > return -EACCES;
> > @@ -3644,8 +3648,20 @@ static int check_atomic(struct bpf_verifier_env
> > *env, int insn_idx, struct bpf_i
> > return err;
> > /* check whether we can write into the same memory */
> > - return check_mem_access(env, insn_idx, insn->dst_reg, insn->off,
> > - BPF_SIZE(insn->code), BPF_WRITE, -1, true);
> > + err = check_mem_access(env, insn_idx, insn->dst_reg, insn->off,
> > + BPF_SIZE(insn->code), BPF_WRITE, -1, true);
> > + if (err)
> > + return err;
> > +
> > + if (!(insn->imm & BPF_FETCH))
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + /* check and record load of old value into src reg */
> > + err = check_reg_arg(env, insn->src_reg, DST_OP);
> > + if (err)
> > + return err;
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > }
> > static int __check_stack_boundary(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 regno,
> > @@ -9501,12 +9517,6 @@ 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)
> > @@ -9515,6 +9525,11 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
> > continue;
> > }
> > + if (BPF_MODE(insn->code) != BPF_MEM && insn->imm != 0) {
>
> "||" here instead of "&&"?
Right - thanks again!
