Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/2] bpf: Get better reg range with ldsx and 32bit compare

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 7/12/24 1:49 PM, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
On Fri, 2024-07-12 at 13:28 -0700, Yonghong Song wrote:

[...]

+
+	/* Here we would like to handle a special case after sign extending load,
+	 * when upper bits for a 64-bit range are all 1s or all 0s.
+	 *
+	 * Upper bits are all 1s when register is in a rage:
+	 *   [0xffff_ffff_0000_0000, 0xffff_ffff_ffff_ffff]
+	 * Upper bits are all 0s when register is in a range:
+	 *   [0x0000_0000_0000_0000, 0x0000_0000_ffff_ffff]
+	 * Together this forms are continuous range:
+	 *   [0xffff_ffff_0000_0000, 0x0000_0000_ffff_ffff]
+	 *
+	 * Now, suppose that register range is in fact tighter:
+	 *   [0xffff_ffff_8000_0000, 0x0000_0000_ffff_ffff] (R)
+	 * Also suppose that it's 32-bit range is positive,
+	 * meaning that lower 32-bits of the full 64-bit register
+	 * are in the range:
+	 *   [0x0000_0000, 0x7fff_ffff] (W)
+	 *
+	 * It this happens, then any value in a range:
+	 *   [0xffff_ffff_0000_0000, 0xffff_ffff_7fff_ffff]
+	 * is smaller than a lowest bound of the range (R):
+	 *   0xffff_ffff_8000_0000
+	 * which means that upper bits of the full 64-bit register
+	 * can't be all 1s, when lower bits are in range (W).
+	 *
+	 * Note that:
+	 *  - 0xffff_ffff_8000_0000 == (s64)S32_MIN
+	 *  - 0x0000_0000_ffff_ffff == (s64)S32_MAX
+	 * These relations are used in the conditions below.
+	 */
+	if (reg->s32_min_value >= 0) {
+		if ((reg->smin_value >= S32_MIN && reg->smax_value <= S32_MAX) ||
+		    (reg->smin_value >= S16_MIN && reg->smax_value <= S16_MAX) ||
+		    (reg->smin_value >= S8_MIN && reg->smax_value <= S8_MAX)) {
Sorry, maybe there is still something I don't understand.
Why do we need 3 different checks here?
- S32_MIN <= r <= S32_MAX (R32)
- S16_MIN <= r <= S16_MAX (R16)
-  S8_MIN <= r <=  S8_MAX (R8)

If R8 or R16 is true then R32 is true, so it seems this condition is redundant.

You are right! I changed from '==' to '>=' but missed this.
Will make changes in the next revision.


+			reg->smin_value = reg->umin_value = reg->s32_min_value;
+			reg->smax_value = reg->umax_value = reg->s32_max_value;
+			reg->var_off = tnum_intersect(reg->var_off,
+						      tnum_range(reg->smin_value,
+								 reg->smax_value));
+		}
+	}
[...]




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux