On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 10:52:37AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 10:06 AM Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > I guess the main question: what should happen if a bpf program writer > > > > does _not_ use compiler nor check_shl_overflow()? > > > > I think the BPF runtime needs to make such actions defined, instead of > > doing a blind shift. It needs to check the size of the shift explicitly > > when handling the shift instruction. > > Such ideas were brought up in the past and rejected. > We're not going to sacrifice performance to make behavior a bit more > 'defined'. CPUs are doing it deterministically. What CPUs do is not the whole story. The compiler can assume that the shift amount is less than the width and use that assumption in other places, resulting in other things being miscompiled. Couldn't you just AND the shift amounts with the width minus 1? That would make the shifts defined, and the compiler would optimize out the AND on any CPU that interprets the shift amounts modulo the width anyway (e.g., x86). - Eric
