On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 18:36, Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > [...] > > Hmm, missing is64 check here (fall-through for 64-bit movs)? > > (re-send because of bouncing back) > > FOR BPF_X form, when imm == 1, it is a special mov32 constructed by > verifier, it can only be BPF_ALU, not BPF_ALU64. And it is used for > instructing JIT back-end to do unconditional zero extension. > > Please see patch 3 description for the explanation. > Doh! Thanks. Björn
