On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 4:59 PM Christy Lee <christylee@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> env->scratched_stack_slots is a 64-bit value, we should use ULL
> instead of UL literal values.
>
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx>
> Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Christy Lee <christylee@xxxxxx>
The fix looks good to me. Thus:
Acked-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@xxxxxx>
However, the patch looks corrupted. Also, the subject is probably too
long (./scripts/checkpatch.pl should complain about it).
Thanks,
Song
> ---
> kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index bfb45381fb3f..a8587210907d 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -616,7 +616,7 @@ static void mark_reg_scratched(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 regno)
>
> static void mark_stack_slot_scratched(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 spi)
> {
> - env->scratched_stack_slots |= 1UL << spi;
> + env->scratched_stack_slots |= 1ULL << spi;
> }
>
> static bool reg_scratched(const struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 regno)
> @@ -637,14 +637,14 @@ static bool verifier_state_scratched(const struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
> static void mark_verifier_state_clean(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
> {
> env->scratched_regs = 0U;
> - env->scratched_stack_slots = 0UL;
> + env->scratched_stack_slots = 0ULL;
> }
>
> /* Used for printing the entire verifier state. */
> static void mark_verifier_state_scratched(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
> {
> env->scratched_regs = ~0U;
> - env->scratched_stack_slots = ~0UL;
> + env->scratched_stack_slots = ~0ULL;
> }
>
> /* The reg state of a pointer or a bounded scalar was saved when
> --
> 2.30.2
>
