On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 12:17 AM Cupertino Miranda
<cupertino.miranda@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> Eduard Zingerman writes:
>
> > [...]
> >
> >> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> >> index 6fe641c8ae33..1777ab00068b 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> >> @@ -13695,6 +13695,77 @@ static void scalar_min_max_arsh(struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg,
> >> __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg);
> >> }
> >>
> >> +static bool is_const_reg_and_valid(const struct bpf_reg_state *reg, bool alu32,
> >> + bool *valid)
> >> +{
> >> + s64 smin_val = reg->smin_value;
> >> + s64 smax_val = reg->smax_value;
> >> + u64 umin_val = reg->umin_value;
> >> + u64 umax_val = reg->umax_value;
> >> + s32 s32_min_val = reg->s32_min_value;
> >> + s32 s32_max_val = reg->s32_max_value;
> >> + u32 u32_min_val = reg->u32_min_value;
> >> + u32 u32_max_val = reg->u32_max_value;
> >> + bool is_const = alu32 ? tnum_subreg_is_const(reg->var_off) :
> >> + tnum_is_const(reg->var_off);
> >> +
> >
> > Nit:
> > Sorry for missing this earlier, should we initialize 'valid' here? e.g.:
> >
> > *valid = true;
> >
> > I understand that it is initialized upper in the stack,
> > but setting it here seems better.
> >
>
> With the last patch and the suggestions of Andrii this code gets
> removed.
> Should we we keep having this small changes? :-)
Pls avoid this churn.
Don't add something in patch 2 just to delete it in patch 8.
pw-bot: cr
