On Fri, 2023-11-17 at 11:47 -0500, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
[...]
> > +SEC("?raw_tp")
> > +__success __log_level(2)
> > +/* Check that last verified exit from the program visited each
> > + * callback expected number of times: one visit per callback for each
> > + * top level bpf_loop call.
> > + */
> > +__msg("r1 = *(u64 *)(r10 -16) ; R1_w=111111 R10=fp0 fp-16=111111")
> > +/* Ensure that read above is the last one by checking that there are
> > + * no more reads for ctx.i.
> > + */
> > +__not_msg("r1 = *(u64 *)(r10 -16) ; R1_w=")
>
> can't you enforce that we don't go above 111111 just by making sure to
> use r1 - 111111 + 1 as an index into choice_arr()?
>
> We can then simplify the patch set by dropping __not_msg() parts (and
> can add them separately).
Well, r1 could be 0 as well, so idx would be out of bounds.
But I like the idea, it is possible to check that r1 is either 00000,
100000, ..., 111111 and do something unsafe otherwise.
Thank you. I'll drop __not_msg() then.
