On Thu, 2023-11-09 at 09:37 -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: [...] > > > @@ -1355,6 +1355,21 @@ static void scrub_spilled_slot(u8 *stype) > > > *stype = STACK_MISC; > > > } > > > > > > +/* Mark stack slot as STACK_MISC, unless it is already STACK_INVALID, in which > > > + * case they are equivalent, or it's STACK_ZERO, in which case we preserve > > > + * more precise STACK_ZERO. > > > + * Note, in uprivileged mode leaving STACK_INVALID is wrong, so we take > > > + * env->allow_ptr_leaks into account and force STACK_MISC, if necessary. > > > + */ > > > +static void mark_stack_slot_misc(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u8 *stype) > > > > Nitpick: I find this name misleading, maybe something like "remove_spill_mark"? > > remove_spill_mark is even more misleading, no? there is also DYNPTR > and ITER stack slots? Right, forgot about those... > > maybe mark_stack_slot_scalar (though that's a bit misleading as well, > as can be understood as marking slot as spilled SCALAR_VALUE > register)? not sure, I think "slot_misc" is close enough as an > approximation of what it's doing, modulo ZERO/INVALID maybe_mark_stack_slot_misc? The other similar function is named 'scrub_spilled_slot'.
