On 9/10/24 8:21 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 8:18 AM Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 9/10/24 7:44 AM, Dave Thaler wrote:
Yonghong Song wrote:
[...]
In verifier, we have
/* [R,W]x div 0 -> 0 */
/* [R,W]x mod 0 -> [R,W]x */
What the value for
Rx_a sdiv Rx_b -> ?
where Rx_a = INT64_MIN and Rx_b = -1?
Should we just do
INT64_MIN sdiv -1 -> -1
or some other values?
What happens for BPF_NEG INT64_MIN?
Right. This is equivalent to INT64_MIN/-1. Indeed, we need check and protect for this case as well.
why? what's wrong with bpf_neg -1 ?
I think you are right. 'bpf_neg <num>' should not cause any exception.
In this particular case 'bpf_neg LLONG_MIN' equals LLONG_MIN.
On arm64,
# cat t4.c
#include <stdio.h>
#include <limits.h>
int main(void) {
volatile long long a = LLONG_MIN;
printf("-a = %lld\n", -a);
return 0;
}
# gcc -O2 t4.c && ./a.out
-a = -9223372036854775808
In the above -a also equals LLONG_MIN.
On x86, we get the same result.
$ uname -a
Linux ... #1 SMP Wed Jun 5 06:21:21 PDT 2024 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
$ cat t4.c
#include <stdio.h>
#include <limits.h>
int main(void) {
volatile long long a = LLONG_MIN;
printf("-a = %lld\n", -a);
return 0;
}
$ gcc -O2 t4.c && ./a.out
-a = -9223372036854775808
$ clang -O2 t4.c && ./a.out
-a = -9223372036854775808
