On 8/1/22 6:44 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On 7/22/22 11:34 AM, Dave Marchevsky wrote:
>> if (__is_pointer_value(false, reg)) {
>> + if (__is_iter_end(reg) && val == 0) {
>> + __mark_reg_const_zero(reg);
>> + switch (opcode) {
>> + case BPF_JEQ:
>> + return 1;
>> + case BPF_JNE:
>> + return 0;
>> + default:
>> + return -1;
>> + }
>> + }
>
> as discussed the verifying the loop twice is not safe.
> This needs more advanced verifier hacking.
> Maybe let's postpone rbtree iters for now and resolve all the rest?
> Or do iters with a callback, since that's more or less a clear path fwd?
>
Yep, I will drop and move to callback-based approach for now. As we discussed
over VC, getting open-coded iteration right will take a long time and hold up
the rest of the patchset.
