On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 10:47 AM Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2024-08-12 at 10:44 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Should we move the check up instead?
> >
> > if (i >= cur->allocated_stack)
> > return false;
> >
> > Checking it twice looks odd.
>
> A few checks before that, namely:
>
> if (!(old->stack[spi].spilled_ptr.live & REG_LIVE_READ)
> && exact == NOT_EXACT) {
> i += BPF_REG_SIZE - 1;
> /* explored state didn't use this */
> continue;
> }
>
> if (old->stack[spi].slot_type[i % BPF_REG_SIZE] == STACK_INVALID)
> continue;
>
> if (env->allow_uninit_stack &&
> old->stack[spi].slot_type[i % BPF_REG_SIZE] == STACK_MISC)
> continue;
>
> Should be done regardless cur->allocated_stack.
Right, but then let's sink old->slot_type != cur->slot_type down?
