On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 10:29:58AM -0700, Tom Herbert wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Alexei Starovoitov
> <alexei.starovoi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 10:01:54AM -0700, Tom Herbert wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Brenden Blanco <bbla...@plumgrid.com>
> >> wrote:
[...]
> >> > +SEC("xdp1")
> >> > +int xdp_prog1(struct xdp_md *ctx)
> >> > +{
> >> > + void *data_end = (void *)(long)ctx->data_end;
> >> > + void *data = (void *)(long)ctx->data;
> >>
> >> Brendan,
> >>
> >> It seems that the cast to long here is done because data_end and data
> >> are u32s in xdp_md. So the effect is that we are upcasting a
> >> thirty-bit integer into a sixty-four bit pointer (in fact without the
> >> cast we see compiler warnings). I don't understand how this can be
> >> correct. Can you shed some light on this?
> >
> > please see:
> > http://lists.iovisor.org/pipermail/iovisor-dev/2016-August/000355.html
> >
> That doesn't explain it. The only thing I can figure is that there is
> an implicit assumption somewhere that even though the pointer size may
> be 64 bits, only the low order thirty-two bits are relevant in this
> environment (i.e. upper bit are always zero for any pointers)-- so
> then it would safe store pointers as u32 and to upcast them to void *.
No, the actual pointer storage is always void* sized (see struct
xdp_buff). The mangling is cosmetic. The verifier converts the
underlying bpf load instruction to the right sized operation.
> If this is indeed the case, then we really need to make this explicit
> to the user. Casting to long without comment just to avoid the
> compiler warning is not good programming style, maybe a function
> xdp_md_data_to_ptr or the like could be used.
>
> Tom
