On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 12:40 PM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 11:13:34AM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > Just taking mundane refactoring bits out into a separate patch. No
> > functional changes.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 107 +++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
> > 1 file changed, 53 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > index f5fcb7fb2c67..aa13f32751a1 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > @@ -14169,26 +14169,25 @@ static void find_good_pkt_pointers(struct bpf_verifier_state *vstate,
> > }));
> > }
> >
> > -static int is_branch32_taken(struct bpf_reg_state *reg, u32 val, u8 opcode)
> > +static int is_branch32_taken(struct bpf_reg_state *reg1, u32 val, u8 opcode)
> > {
> > - struct tnum subreg = tnum_subreg(reg->var_off);
>
> Looks like accidental removal that breaks build.
>
Yeah, sorry, there was *a lot* of rebasing involved to split all this
up. I'll fix it, thanks for spotting!
> > s32 sval = (s32)val;
> >
> > switch (opcode) {
> > case BPF_JEQ:
> > if (tnum_is_const(subreg))
> > return !!tnum_equals_const(subreg, val);
