On 12/18/2017 04:29 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:55 AM, Alexei Starovoitov <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> + if (jit_data->ctx.offset) {
>> + ctx = jit_data->ctx;
>> + image_ptr = jit_data->image;
>> + header = jit_data->header;
>> + extra_pass = true;
>> + goto skip_init_ctx;
>> + }
>> memset(&ctx, 0, sizeof(ctx));
>> ctx.prog = prog;
>
> The 'goto' jumps over the 'image_size' initialization
>
>> prog->bpf_func = (void *)ctx.image;
>> prog->jited = 1;
>> prog->jited_len = image_size;
>
> so we now get a warning here, starting with linux-next-20171218:
>
> arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c: In function 'bpf_int_jit_compile':
> arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:982:18: error: 'image_size' may be used
> uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
>
> I could not figure out what the code should be doing instead, or if it is
> indeed safe and the warning is a false-positive.
Good catch, it's buggy indeed. Fix like below is needed; I can submit
it properly a bit later today:
diff --git a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
index 396490c..a6fd585 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
@@ -855,6 +855,7 @@ static inline void bpf_flush_icache(void *start, void *end)
struct arm64_jit_data {
struct bpf_binary_header *header;
u8 *image;
+ int image_size;
struct jit_ctx ctx;
};
@@ -895,6 +896,7 @@ struct bpf_prog *bpf_int_jit_compile(struct bpf_prog *prog)
if (jit_data->ctx.offset) {
ctx = jit_data->ctx;
image_ptr = jit_data->image;
+ image_size = jit_data->image_size;
header = jit_data->header;
extra_pass = true;
goto skip_init_ctx;
@@ -975,6 +977,7 @@ struct bpf_prog *bpf_int_jit_compile(struct bpf_prog *prog)
} else {
jit_data->ctx = ctx;
jit_data->image = image_ptr;
+ jit_data->image_size = image_size;
jit_data->header = header;
}
prog->bpf_func = (void *)ctx.image;