Re: [PATCH net-next] bpf/verifier: improve disassembly of BPF_END instructions

[Edward Cree]

On 22/09/17 16:16, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> looks like we're converging on
> "be16/be32/be64/le16/le32/le64 #register" for BPF_END.
> I guess it can live with that. I would prefer more C like syntax
> to match the rest, but llvm parsing point is a strong one.
Yep, agreed.  I'll post a v2 once we've settled BPF_NEG.
> For BPG_NEG I prefer to do it in C syntax like interpreter does:
>         ALU_NEG:
>                 DST = (u32) -DST;
>         ALU64_NEG:
>                 DST = -DST;
> Yonghong, does it mean that asmparser will equally suffer?
Correction to my earlier statements: verifier will currently disassemble
 neg as:
(87) r0 neg 0
(84) (u32) r0 neg (u32) 0
 because it pretends 'neg' is a compound-assignment operator like +=.
The analogy with be16 and friends would be to use
    neg64 r0
    neg32 r0
 whereas the analogy with everything else would be
    r0 = -r0
    r0 = (u32) -r0
 as Alexei says.
I'm happy to go with Alexei's version if it doesn't cause problems for llvm.