On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 09:05:05AM -0700, Yonghong Song wrote: > On 7/16/25 3:13 AM, Shung-Hsi Yu wrote: > > Hi Andrii and Yonghong, > > > > On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 09:13:40PM -0700, Yonghong Song wrote: > > > Add two tests: > > > - one test has 'rX <op> r10' where rX is not r10, and > > > - another test has 'rX <op> rY' where rX and rY are not r10 > > > but there is an early insn 'rX = r10'. > > > > > > Without previous verifier change, both tests will fail. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > .../selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_precision.c | 53 +++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 53 insertions(+) > > I was looking this commit (5ffb537e416e) since it was a BPF selftest > > test for CVE-2025-38279, but upon looking I found that the commit > > differs from the patch, there is an extra hunk that changed > > kernel/bpf/verifier.c that wasn't found the Yonghong's original patch. > > > > I suppose it was meant to be squashed into the previous commit > > e2d2115e56c4 "bpf: Do not include stack ptr register in precision > > backtracking bookkeeping"? > > Andrii made some change to my original patch for easy understanding. > See > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20250524041335.4046126-1-yonghong.song@xxxxxxxxx > Quoted below: > " > I've moved it inside the preceding if/else (twice), so it's more > obvious that BPF_X deal with both src_reg and dst_reg, and BPF_K case > deals only with BPF_K. The end result is the same, but I found this > way a bit easier to follow. Applied to bpf-next, thanks. Argh, indeed I missed the sibling thread. Thanks for point that out. Shung-Hsi ...
