From: zhongjun <zhongjun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> BPF_F_STRICT_ALIGNMENT and BPF_F_ANY_ALIGNMENT are exclusive flags. Intuitively the strict one should take higher precedence. Applying this patch, make semantics of flags more properly. Signed-off-by: Jun Zhong <zhongjun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> base-commit: 919e659ed12568b5b8ba6c2ffdd82d8d31fc28af --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 5 ++--- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index d517d13878cf..ed912c0cedee 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -17710,11 +17710,10 @@ int bpf_check(struct bpf_prog **prog, union bpf_attr *attr, bpfptr_t uattr) goto skip_full_check; } - env->strict_alignment = !!(attr->prog_flags & BPF_F_STRICT_ALIGNMENT); - if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS)) - env->strict_alignment = true; + env->strict_alignment = !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS); if (attr->prog_flags & BPF_F_ANY_ALIGNMENT) env->strict_alignment = false; + env->strict_alignment |= !!(attr->prog_flags & BPF_F_STRICT_ALIGNMENT); env->allow_ptr_leaks = bpf_allow_ptr_leaks(); env->allow_uninit_stack = bpf_allow_uninit_stack(); -- 2.20.1
