mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* verifier: should we handle mark_chain_precision return value properly in loop_flag_is_zero?
@ 2025-10-01 14:21 Suchit Karunakaran
  0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Suchit Karunakaran @ 2025-10-01 14:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: ast, daniel, john.fastabend, andrii, martin.lau, eddyz87, song,
	yonghong.song, kpsingh, sdf, haoluo, jolsa, bpf
  Cc: skhan, linux-kernel

Hi folks,
While going through the verifier code, I noticed that the integer return value of mark_chain_precision() is ignored within loop_flag_is_zero().

static bool loop_flag_is_zero(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
{
    struct bpf_reg_state *regs = cur_regs(env);
    struct bpf_reg_state *reg = &regs[BPF_REG_4];
    bool reg_is_null = register_is_null(reg);

    if (reg_is_null)
        mark_chain_precision(env, BPF_REG_4);

    return reg_is_null;
}

My question is:
Is this behavior intentional (i.e., errors from mark_chain_precision() are safe to ignore here)?
Or should loop_flag_is_zero() propagate the error to update_loop_inline_state() and from there to check_helper_call() function?
I’d appreciate any clarification or suggestions. Apologies if this kind of question isn’t appropriate for the mailing list, I wanted to clarify the intended semantics before attempting a fix.

Thanks,
Suchit Karunakaran

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] only message in thread

only message in thread, other threads:[~2025-10-01 14:21 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2025-10-01 14:21 verifier: should we handle mark_chain_precision return value properly in loop_flag_is_zero? Suchit Karunakaran

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®