Remove register chain based liveness tracking:
- struct bpf_reg_state->{parent,live} fields are no longer needed;
- REG_LIVE_WRITTEN marks are superseded by bpf_mark_stack_write()
calls;
- mark_reg_read() calls are superseded by bpf_mark_stack_read();
- log.c:print_liveness() is superseded by logging in liveness.c;
- propagate_liveness() is superseded by bpf_update_live_stack();
- no need to establish register chains in is_state_visited() anymore;
- fix a bunch of tests expecting "_w" suffixes in verifier log
messages.
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@xxxxxxxxx>
---
Documentation/bpf/verifier.rst | 264 ---------------
include/linux/bpf_verifier.h | 25 --
kernel/bpf/log.c | 26 +-
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 312 ++----------------
.../testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/align.c | 178 +++++-----
.../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/spin_lock.c | 12 +-
.../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_veristat.c | 44 +--
.../selftests/bpf/progs/exceptions_assert.c | 34 +-
.../selftests/bpf/progs/iters_state_safety.c | 4 +-
.../selftests/bpf/progs/iters_testmod_seq.c | 6 +-
.../bpf/progs/mem_rdonly_untrusted.c | 4 +-
.../selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bounds.c | 38 +--
.../bpf/progs/verifier_global_ptr_args.c | 4 +-
.../selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_ldsx.c | 2 +-
.../selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_precision.c | 16 +-
.../selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_scalar_ids.c | 10 +-
.../selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_spill_fill.c | 40 +--
.../bpf/progs/verifier_subprog_precision.c | 6 +-
.../selftests/bpf/verifier/bpf_st_mem.c | 4 +-
19 files changed, 224 insertions(+), 805 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/verifier.rst b/Documentation/bpf/verifier.rst
index 95e6f80a407e..510d15bc697b 100644
--- a/Documentation/bpf/verifier.rst
+++ b/Documentation/bpf/verifier.rst
@@ -347,270 +347,6 @@ However, only the value of register ``r1`` is important to successfully finish
verification. The goal of the liveness tracking algorithm is to spot this fact
and figure out that both states are actually equivalent.
-Data structures
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
-Liveness is tracked using the following data structures::
-
- enum bpf_reg_liveness {
- REG_LIVE_NONE = 0,
- REG_LIVE_READ32 = 0x1,
- REG_LIVE_READ64 = 0x2,
- REG_LIVE_READ = REG_LIVE_READ32 | REG_LIVE_READ64,
- REG_LIVE_WRITTEN = 0x4,
- REG_LIVE_DONE = 0x8,
- };
-
- struct bpf_reg_state {
- ...
- struct bpf_reg_state *parent;
- ...
- enum bpf_reg_liveness live;
- ...
- };
-
- struct bpf_stack_state {
- struct bpf_reg_state spilled_ptr;
- ...
- };
-
- struct bpf_func_state {
- struct bpf_reg_state regs[MAX_BPF_REG];
- ...
- struct bpf_stack_state *stack;
- }
-
- struct bpf_verifier_state {
- struct bpf_func_state *frame[MAX_CALL_FRAMES];
- struct bpf_verifier_state *parent;
- ...
- }
-
-* ``REG_LIVE_NONE`` is an initial value assigned to ``->live`` fields upon new
- verifier state creation;
-
-* ``REG_LIVE_WRITTEN`` means that the value of the register (or stack slot) is
- defined by some instruction verified between this verifier state's parent and
- verifier state itself;
-
-* ``REG_LIVE_READ{32,64}`` means that the value of the register (or stack slot)
- is read by a some child state of this verifier state;
-
-* ``REG_LIVE_DONE`` is a marker used by ``clean_verifier_state()`` to avoid
- processing same verifier state multiple times and for some sanity checks;
-
-* ``->live`` field values are formed by combining ``enum bpf_reg_liveness``
- values using bitwise or.
-
-Register parentage chains
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
-In order to propagate information between parent and child states, a *register
-parentage chain* is established. Each register or stack slot is linked to a
-corresponding register or stack slot in its parent state via a ``->parent``
-pointer. This link is established upon state creation in ``is_state_visited()``
-and might be modified by ``set_callee_state()`` called from
-``__check_func_call()``.
-
-The rules for correspondence between registers / stack slots are as follows:
-
-* For the current stack frame, registers and stack slots of the new state are
- linked to the registers and stack slots of the parent state with the same
- indices.
-
-* For the outer stack frames, only callee saved registers (r6-r9) and stack
- slots are linked to the registers and stack slots of the parent state with the
- same indices.
-
-* When function call is processed a new ``struct bpf_func_state`` instance is
- allocated, it encapsulates a new set of registers and stack slots. For this
- new frame, parent links for r6-r9 and stack slots are set to nil, parent links
- for r1-r5 are set to match caller r1-r5 parent links.
-
-This could be illustrated by the following diagram (arrows stand for
-``->parent`` pointers)::
-
- ... ; Frame #0, some instructions
- --- checkpoint #0 ---
- 1 : r6 = 42 ; Frame #0
- --- checkpoint #1 ---
- 2 : call foo() ; Frame #0
- ... ; Frame #1, instructions from foo()
- --- checkpoint #2 ---
- ... ; Frame #1, instructions from foo()
- --- checkpoint #3 ---
- exit ; Frame #1, return from foo()
- 3 : r1 = r6 ; Frame #0 <- current state
-
- +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
- | Frame #0 | Frame #1 |
- Checkpoint +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
- #0 | r0 | r1-r5 | r6-r9 | fp-8 ... |
- +-------------------------------+
- ^ ^ ^ ^
- | | | |
- Checkpoint +-------------------------------+
- #1 | r0 | r1-r5 | r6-r9 | fp-8 ... |
- +-------------------------------+
- ^ ^ ^
- |_______|_______|_______________
- | | |
- nil nil | | | nil nil
- | | | | | | |
- Checkpoint +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
- #2 | r0 | r1-r5 | r6-r9 | fp-8 ... | r0 | r1-r5 | r6-r9 | fp-8 ... |
- +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
- ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
- nil nil | | | | |
- | | | | | | |
- Checkpoint +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
- #3 | r0 | r1-r5 | r6-r9 | fp-8 ... | r0 | r1-r5 | r6-r9 | fp-8 ... |
- +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
- ^ ^
- nil nil | |
- | | | |
- Current +-------------------------------+
- state | r0 | r1-r5 | r6-r9 | fp-8 ... |
- +-------------------------------+
- \
- r6 read mark is propagated via these links
- all the way up to checkpoint #1.
- The checkpoint #1 contains a write mark for r6
- because of instruction (1), thus read propagation
- does not reach checkpoint #0 (see section below).
-
-Liveness marks tracking
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
-For each processed instruction, the verifier tracks read and written registers
-and stack slots. The main idea of the algorithm is that read marks propagate
-back along the state parentage chain until they hit a write mark, which 'screens
-off' earlier states from the read. The information about reads is propagated by
-function ``mark_reg_read()`` which could be summarized as follows::
-
- mark_reg_read(struct bpf_reg_state *state, ...):
- parent = state->parent
- while parent:
- if state->live & REG_LIVE_WRITTEN:
- break
- if parent->live & REG_LIVE_READ64:
- break
- parent->live |= REG_LIVE_READ64
- state = parent
- parent = state->parent
-
-Notes:
-
-* The read marks are applied to the **parent** state while write marks are
- applied to the **current** state. The write mark on a register or stack slot
- means that it is updated by some instruction in the straight-line code leading
- from the parent state to the current state.
-
-* Details about REG_LIVE_READ32 are omitted.
-
-* Function ``propagate_liveness()`` (see section :ref:`read_marks_for_cache_hits`)
- might override the first parent link. Please refer to the comments in the
- ``propagate_liveness()`` and ``mark_reg_read()`` source code for further
- details.
-
-Because stack writes could have different sizes ``REG_LIVE_WRITTEN`` marks are
-applied conservatively: stack slots are marked as written only if write size
-corresponds to the size of the register, e.g. see function ``save_register_state()``.
-
-Consider the following example::
-
- 0: (*u64)(r10 - 8) = 0 ; define 8 bytes of fp-8
- --- checkpoint #0 ---
- 1: (*u32)(r10 - 8) = 1 ; redefine lower 4 bytes
- 2: r1 = (*u32)(r10 - 8) ; read lower 4 bytes defined at (1)
- 3: r2 = (*u32)(r10 - 4) ; read upper 4 bytes defined at (0)
-
-As stated above, the write at (1) does not count as ``REG_LIVE_WRITTEN``. Should
-it be otherwise, the algorithm above wouldn't be able to propagate the read mark
-from (3) to checkpoint #0.
-
-Once the ``BPF_EXIT`` instruction is reached ``update_branch_counts()`` is
-called to update the ``->branches`` counter for each verifier state in a chain
-of parent verifier states. When the ``->branches`` counter reaches zero the
-verifier state becomes a valid entry in a set of cached verifier states.
-
-Each entry of the verifier states cache is post-processed by a function
-``clean_live_states()``. This function marks all registers and stack slots
-without ``REG_LIVE_READ{32,64}`` marks as ``NOT_INIT`` or ``STACK_INVALID``.
-Registers/stack slots marked in this way are ignored in function ``stacksafe()``
-called from ``states_equal()`` when a state cache entry is considered for
-equivalence with a current state.
-
-Now it is possible to explain how the example from the beginning of the section
-works::
-
- 0: call bpf_get_prandom_u32()
- 1: r1 = 0
- 2: if r0 == 0 goto +1
- 3: r0 = 1
- --- checkpoint[0] ---
- 4: r0 = r1
- 5: exit
-
-* At instruction #2 branching point is reached and state ``{ r0 == 0, r1 == 0, pc == 4 }``
- is pushed to states processing queue (pc stands for program counter).
-
-* At instruction #4:
-
- * ``checkpoint[0]`` states cache entry is created: ``{ r0 == 1, r1 == 0, pc == 4 }``;
- * ``checkpoint[0].r0`` is marked as written;
- * ``checkpoint[0].r1`` is marked as read;
-
-* At instruction #5 exit is reached and ``checkpoint[0]`` can now be processed
- by ``clean_live_states()``. After this processing ``checkpoint[0].r1`` has a
- read mark and all other registers and stack slots are marked as ``NOT_INIT``
- or ``STACK_INVALID``
-
-* The state ``{ r0 == 0, r1 == 0, pc == 4 }`` is popped from the states queue
- and is compared against a cached state ``{ r1 == 0, pc == 4 }``, the states
- are considered equivalent.
-
-.. _read_marks_for_cache_hits:
-
-Read marks propagation for cache hits
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
-Another point is the handling of read marks when a previously verified state is
-found in the states cache. Upon cache hit verifier must behave in the same way
-as if the current state was verified to the program exit. This means that all
-read marks, present on registers and stack slots of the cached state, must be
-propagated over the parentage chain of the current state. Example below shows
-why this is important. Function ``propagate_liveness()`` handles this case.
-
-Consider the following state parentage chain (S is a starting state, A-E are
-derived states, -> arrows show which state is derived from which)::
-
- r1 read
- <------------- A[r1] == 0
- C[r1] == 0
- S ---> A ---> B ---> exit E[r1] == 1
- |
- ` ---> C ---> D
- |
- ` ---> E ^
- |___ suppose all these
- ^ states are at insn #Y
- |
- suppose all these
- states are at insn #X
-
-* Chain of states ``S -> A -> B -> exit`` is verified first.
-
-* While ``B -> exit`` is verified, register ``r1`` is read and this read mark is
- propagated up to state ``A``.
-
-* When chain of states ``C -> D`` is verified the state ``D`` turns out to be
- equivalent to state ``B``.
-
-* The read mark for ``r1`` has to be propagated to state ``C``, otherwise state
- ``C`` might get mistakenly marked as equivalent to state ``E`` even though
- values for register ``r1`` differ between ``C`` and ``E``.
-
Understanding eBPF verifier messages
====================================
diff --git a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
index dec5da3a2e59..c7515da8500c 100644
--- a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
+++ b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
@@ -26,27 +26,6 @@
/* Patch buffer size */
#define INSN_BUF_SIZE 32
-/* Liveness marks, used for registers and spilled-regs (in stack slots).
- * Read marks propagate upwards until they find a write mark; they record that
- * "one of this state's descendants read this reg" (and therefore the reg is
- * relevant for states_equal() checks).
- * Write marks collect downwards and do not propagate; they record that "the
- * straight-line code that reached this state (from its parent) wrote this reg"
- * (and therefore that reads propagated from this state or its descendants
- * should not propagate to its parent).
- * A state with a write mark can receive read marks; it just won't propagate
- * them to its parent, since the write mark is a property, not of the state,
- * but of the link between it and its parent. See mark_reg_read() and
- * mark_stack_slot_read() in kernel/bpf/verifier.c.
- */
-enum bpf_reg_liveness {
- REG_LIVE_NONE = 0, /* reg hasn't been read or written this branch */
- REG_LIVE_READ32 = 0x1, /* reg was read, so we're sensitive to initial value */
- REG_LIVE_READ64 = 0x2, /* likewise, but full 64-bit content matters */
- REG_LIVE_READ = REG_LIVE_READ32 | REG_LIVE_READ64,
- REG_LIVE_WRITTEN = 0x4, /* reg was written first, screening off later reads */
-};
-
#define ITER_PREFIX "bpf_iter_"
enum bpf_iter_state {
@@ -211,8 +190,6 @@ struct bpf_reg_state {
* allowed and has the same effect as bpf_sk_release(sk).
*/
u32 ref_obj_id;
- /* parentage chain for liveness checking */
- struct bpf_reg_state *parent;
/* Inside the callee two registers can be both PTR_TO_STACK like
* R1=fp-8 and R2=fp-8, but one of them points to this function stack
* while another to the caller's stack. To differentiate them 'frameno'
@@ -225,7 +202,6 @@ struct bpf_reg_state {
* patching which only happens after main verification finished.
*/
s32 subreg_def;
- enum bpf_reg_liveness live;
/* if (!precise && SCALAR_VALUE) min/max/tnum don't affect safety */
bool precise;
};
@@ -852,7 +828,6 @@ struct bpf_verifier_env {
/* array of pointers to bpf_scc_info indexed by SCC id */
struct bpf_scc_info **scc_info;
u32 scc_cnt;
- bool internal_error;
};
static inline struct bpf_func_info_aux *subprog_aux(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int subprog)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/log.c b/kernel/bpf/log.c
index 0d6d7bfb2fd0..f50533169cc3 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/log.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/log.c
@@ -542,17 +542,6 @@ static char slot_type_char[] = {
[STACK_IRQ_FLAG] = 'f'
};
-static void print_liveness(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
- enum bpf_reg_liveness live)
-{
- if (live & (REG_LIVE_READ | REG_LIVE_WRITTEN))
- verbose(env, "_");
- if (live & REG_LIVE_READ)
- verbose(env, "r");
- if (live & REG_LIVE_WRITTEN)
- verbose(env, "w");
-}
-
#define UNUM_MAX_DECIMAL U16_MAX
#define SNUM_MAX_DECIMAL S16_MAX
#define SNUM_MIN_DECIMAL S16_MIN
@@ -770,7 +759,6 @@ void print_verifier_state(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, const struct bpf_verifie
if (!print_all && !reg_scratched(env, i))
continue;
verbose(env, " R%d", i);
- print_liveness(env, reg->live);
verbose(env, "=");
print_reg_state(env, state, reg);
}
@@ -803,9 +791,7 @@ void print_verifier_state(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, const struct bpf_verifie
break;
types_buf[j] = '\0';
- verbose(env, " fp%d", (-i - 1) * BPF_REG_SIZE);
- print_liveness(env, reg->live);
- verbose(env, "=%s", types_buf);
+ verbose(env, " fp%d=%s", (-i - 1) * BPF_REG_SIZE, types_buf);
print_reg_state(env, state, reg);
break;
case STACK_DYNPTR:
@@ -814,7 +800,6 @@ void print_verifier_state(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, const struct bpf_verifie
reg = &state->stack[i].spilled_ptr;
verbose(env, " fp%d", (-i - 1) * BPF_REG_SIZE);
- print_liveness(env, reg->live);
verbose(env, "=dynptr_%s(", dynptr_type_str(reg->dynptr.type));
if (reg->id)
verbose_a("id=%d", reg->id);
@@ -829,9 +814,8 @@ void print_verifier_state(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, const struct bpf_verifie
if (!reg->ref_obj_id)
continue;
- verbose(env, " fp%d", (-i - 1) * BPF_REG_SIZE);
- print_liveness(env, reg->live);
- verbose(env, "=iter_%s(ref_id=%d,state=%s,depth=%u)",
+ verbose(env, " fp%d=iter_%s(ref_id=%d,state=%s,depth=%u)",
+ (-i - 1) * BPF_REG_SIZE,
iter_type_str(reg->iter.btf, reg->iter.btf_id),
reg->ref_obj_id, iter_state_str(reg->iter.state),
reg->iter.depth);
@@ -839,9 +823,7 @@ void print_verifier_state(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, const struct bpf_verifie
case STACK_MISC:
case STACK_ZERO:
default:
- verbose(env, " fp%d", (-i - 1) * BPF_REG_SIZE);
- print_liveness(env, reg->live);
- verbose(env, "=%s", types_buf);
+ verbose(env, " fp%d=%s", (-i - 1) * BPF_REG_SIZE, types_buf);
break;
}
}
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 07115f8b9e5f..6efb555a1e8a 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -787,8 +787,6 @@ static int mark_stack_slots_dynptr(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_reg_
state->stack[spi - 1].spilled_ptr.ref_obj_id = id;
}
- state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr.live |= REG_LIVE_WRITTEN;
- state->stack[spi - 1].spilled_ptr.live |= REG_LIVE_WRITTEN;
bpf_mark_stack_write(env, state->frameno, BIT(spi - 1) | BIT(spi));
return 0;
@@ -806,29 +804,6 @@ static void invalidate_dynptr(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_func_stat
__mark_reg_not_init(env, &state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr);
__mark_reg_not_init(env, &state->stack[spi - 1].spilled_ptr);
- /* Why do we need to set REG_LIVE_WRITTEN for STACK_INVALID slot?
- *
- * While we don't allow reading STACK_INVALID, it is still possible to
- * do <8 byte writes marking some but not all slots as STACK_MISC. Then,
- * helpers or insns can do partial read of that part without failing,
- * but check_stack_range_initialized, check_stack_read_var_off, and
- * check_stack_read_fixed_off will do mark_reg_read for all 8-bytes of
- * the slot conservatively. Hence we need to prevent those liveness
- * marking walks.
- *
- * This was not a problem before because STACK_INVALID is only set by
- * default (where the default reg state has its reg->parent as NULL), or
- * in clean_live_states after REG_LIVE_DONE (at which point
- * mark_reg_read won't walk reg->parent chain), but not randomly during
- * verifier state exploration (like we did above). Hence, for our case
- * parentage chain will still be live (i.e. reg->parent may be
- * non-NULL), while earlier reg->parent was NULL, so we need
- * REG_LIVE_WRITTEN to screen off read marker propagation when it is
- * done later on reads or by mark_dynptr_read as well to unnecessary
- * mark registers in verifier state.
- */
- state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr.live |= REG_LIVE_WRITTEN;
- state->stack[spi - 1].spilled_ptr.live |= REG_LIVE_WRITTEN;
bpf_mark_stack_write(env, state->frameno, BIT(spi - 1) | BIT(spi));
}
@@ -938,9 +913,6 @@ static int destroy_if_dynptr_stack_slot(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
__mark_reg_not_init(env, &state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr);
__mark_reg_not_init(env, &state->stack[spi - 1].spilled_ptr);
- /* Same reason as unmark_stack_slots_dynptr above */
- state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr.live |= REG_LIVE_WRITTEN;
- state->stack[spi - 1].spilled_ptr.live |= REG_LIVE_WRITTEN;
bpf_mark_stack_write(env, state->frameno, BIT(spi - 1) | BIT(spi));
return 0;
@@ -1059,7 +1031,6 @@ static int mark_stack_slots_iter(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
else
st->type |= PTR_UNTRUSTED;
}
- st->live |= REG_LIVE_WRITTEN;
st->ref_obj_id = i == 0 ? id : 0;
st->iter.btf = btf;
st->iter.btf_id = btf_id;
@@ -1095,9 +1066,6 @@ static int unmark_stack_slots_iter(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
__mark_reg_not_init(env, st);
- /* see unmark_stack_slots_dynptr() for why we need to set REG_LIVE_WRITTEN */
- st->live |= REG_LIVE_WRITTEN;
-
for (j = 0; j < BPF_REG_SIZE; j++)
slot->slot_type[j] = STACK_INVALID;
@@ -1194,7 +1162,6 @@ static int mark_stack_slot_irq_flag(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
bpf_mark_stack_write(env, reg->frameno, BIT(spi));
__mark_reg_known_zero(st);
st->type = PTR_TO_STACK; /* we don't have dedicated reg type */
- st->live |= REG_LIVE_WRITTEN;
st->ref_obj_id = id;
st->irq.kfunc_class = kfunc_class;
@@ -1248,8 +1215,6 @@ static int unmark_stack_slot_irq_flag(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_r
__mark_reg_not_init(env, st);
- /* see unmark_stack_slots_dynptr() for why we need to set REG_LIVE_WRITTEN */
- st->live |= REG_LIVE_WRITTEN;
bpf_mark_stack_write(env, reg->frameno, BIT(spi));
for (i = 0; i < BPF_REG_SIZE; i++)
@@ -2886,8 +2851,6 @@ static void init_reg_state(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
for (i = 0; i < MAX_BPF_REG; i++) {
mark_reg_not_init(env, regs, i);
- regs[i].live = REG_LIVE_NONE;
- regs[i].parent = NULL;
regs[i].subreg_def = DEF_NOT_SUBREG;
}
@@ -3568,64 +3531,12 @@ static int check_subprogs(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
return 0;
}
-/* Parentage chain of this register (or stack slot) should take care of all
- * issues like callee-saved registers, stack slot allocation time, etc.
- */
-static int mark_reg_read(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
- const struct bpf_reg_state *state,
- struct bpf_reg_state *parent, u8 flag)
-{
- bool writes = parent == state->parent; /* Observe write marks */
- int cnt = 0;
-
- while (parent) {
- /* if read wasn't screened by an earlier write ... */
- if (writes && state->live & REG_LIVE_WRITTEN)
- break;
- /* The first condition is more likely to be true than the
- * second, checked it first.
- */
- if ((parent->live & REG_LIVE_READ) == flag ||
- parent->live & REG_LIVE_READ64)
- /* The parentage chain never changes and
- * this parent was already marked as LIVE_READ.
- * There is no need to keep walking the chain again and
- * keep re-marking all parents as LIVE_READ.
- * This case happens when the same register is read
- * multiple times without writes into it in-between.
- * Also, if parent has the stronger REG_LIVE_READ64 set,
- * then no need to set the weak REG_LIVE_READ32.
- */
- break;
- /* ... then we depend on parent's value */
- parent->live |= flag;
- /* REG_LIVE_READ64 overrides REG_LIVE_READ32. */
- if (flag == REG_LIVE_READ64)
- parent->live &= ~REG_LIVE_READ32;
- state = parent;
- parent = state->parent;
- writes = true;
- cnt++;
- }
-
- if (env->longest_mark_read_walk < cnt)
- env->longest_mark_read_walk = cnt;
- return 0;
-}
-
static int mark_stack_slot_obj_read(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_reg_state *reg,
int spi, int nr_slots)
{
- struct bpf_func_state *state = func(env, reg);
int err, i;
for (i = 0; i < nr_slots; i++) {
- struct bpf_reg_state *st = &state->stack[spi - i].spilled_ptr;
-
- err = mark_reg_read(env, st, st->parent, REG_LIVE_READ64);
- if (err)
- return err;
-
err = bpf_mark_stack_read(env, reg->frameno, env->insn_idx, BIT(spi - i));
if (err)
return err;
@@ -3837,15 +3748,13 @@ static int __check_reg_arg(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_reg_state *r
if (rw64)
mark_insn_zext(env, reg);
- return mark_reg_read(env, reg, reg->parent,
- rw64 ? REG_LIVE_READ64 : REG_LIVE_READ32);
+ return 0;
} else {
/* check whether register used as dest operand can be written to */
if (regno == BPF_REG_FP) {
verbose(env, "frame pointer is read only\n");
return -EACCES;
}
- reg->live |= REG_LIVE_WRITTEN;
reg->subreg_def = rw64 ? DEF_NOT_SUBREG : env->insn_idx + 1;
if (t == DST_OP)
mark_reg_unknown(env, regs, regno);
@@ -5050,12 +4959,7 @@ static void assign_scalar_id_before_mov(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
/* Copy src state preserving dst->parent and dst->live fields */
static void copy_register_state(struct bpf_reg_state *dst, const struct bpf_reg_state *src)
{
- struct bpf_reg_state *parent = dst->parent;
- enum bpf_reg_liveness live = dst->live;
-
*dst = *src;
- dst->parent = parent;
- dst->live = live;
}
static void save_register_state(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
@@ -5066,8 +4970,6 @@ static void save_register_state(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
int i;
copy_register_state(&state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr, reg);
- if (size == BPF_REG_SIZE)
- state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr.live |= REG_LIVE_WRITTEN;
for (i = BPF_REG_SIZE; i > BPF_REG_SIZE - size; i--)
state->stack[spi].slot_type[i - 1] = STACK_SPILL;
@@ -5216,17 +5118,6 @@ static int check_stack_write_fixed_off(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
for (i = 0; i < BPF_REG_SIZE; i++)
scrub_spilled_slot(&state->stack[spi].slot_type[i]);
- /* only mark the slot as written if all 8 bytes were written
- * otherwise read propagation may incorrectly stop too soon
- * when stack slots are partially written.
- * This heuristic means that read propagation will be
- * conservative, since it will add reg_live_read marks
- * to stack slots all the way to first state when programs
- * writes+reads less than 8 bytes
- */
- if (size == BPF_REG_SIZE)
- state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr.live |= REG_LIVE_WRITTEN;
-
/* when we zero initialize stack slots mark them as such */
if ((reg && register_is_null(reg)) ||
(!reg && is_bpf_st_mem(insn) && insn->imm == 0)) {
@@ -5419,7 +5310,6 @@ static void mark_reg_stack_read(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
/* have read misc data from the stack */
mark_reg_unknown(env, state->regs, dst_regno);
}
- state->regs[dst_regno].live |= REG_LIVE_WRITTEN;
}
/* Read the stack at 'off' and put the results into the register indicated by
@@ -5466,7 +5356,6 @@ static int check_stack_read_fixed_off(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
return -EACCES;
}
- mark_reg_read(env, reg, reg->parent, REG_LIVE_READ64);
if (dst_regno < 0)
return 0;
@@ -5520,7 +5409,6 @@ static int check_stack_read_fixed_off(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
insn_flags = 0; /* not restoring original register state */
}
}
- state->regs[dst_regno].live |= REG_LIVE_WRITTEN;
} else if (dst_regno >= 0) {
/* restore register state from stack */
copy_register_state(&state->regs[dst_regno], reg);
@@ -5528,7 +5416,6 @@ static int check_stack_read_fixed_off(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
* has its liveness marks cleared by is_state_visited()
* which resets stack/reg liveness for state transitions
*/
- state->regs[dst_regno].live |= REG_LIVE_WRITTEN;
} else if (__is_pointer_value(env->allow_ptr_leaks, reg)) {
/* If dst_regno==-1, the caller is asking us whether
* it is acceptable to use this value as a SCALAR_VALUE
@@ -5540,7 +5427,6 @@ static int check_stack_read_fixed_off(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
off);
return -EACCES;
}
- mark_reg_read(env, reg, reg->parent, REG_LIVE_READ64);
} else {
for (i = 0; i < size; i++) {
type = stype[(slot - i) % BPF_REG_SIZE];
@@ -5554,7 +5440,6 @@ static int check_stack_read_fixed_off(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
off, i, size);
return -EACCES;
}
- mark_reg_read(env, reg, reg->parent, REG_LIVE_READ64);
if (dst_regno >= 0)
mark_reg_stack_read(env, reg_state, off, off + size, dst_regno);
insn_flags = 0; /* we are not restoring spilled register */
@@ -8182,13 +8067,10 @@ static int check_stack_range_initialized(
/* reading any byte out of 8-byte 'spill_slot' will cause
* the whole slot to be marked as 'read'
*/
- mark_reg_read(env, &state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr,
- state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr.parent,
- REG_LIVE_READ64);
err = bpf_mark_stack_read(env, reg->frameno, env->insn_idx, BIT(spi));
if (err)
return err;
- /* We do not set REG_LIVE_WRITTEN for stack slot, as we can not
+ /* We do not call bpf_mark_stack_write(), as we can not
* be sure that whether stack slot is written to or not. Hence,
* we must still conservatively propagate reads upwards even if
* helper may write to the entire memory range.
@@ -11022,8 +10904,7 @@ static int prepare_func_exit(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int *insn_idx)
}
/* we are going to rely on register's precise value */
- err = mark_reg_read(env, r0, r0->parent, REG_LIVE_READ64);
- err = err ?: mark_chain_precision(env, BPF_REG_0);
+ err = mark_chain_precision(env, BPF_REG_0);
if (err)
return err;
@@ -11927,17 +11808,11 @@ static void __mark_btf_func_reg_size(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_re
if (regno == BPF_REG_0) {
/* Function return value */
- reg->live |= REG_LIVE_WRITTEN;
reg->subreg_def = reg_size == sizeof(u64) ?
DEF_NOT_SUBREG : env->insn_idx + 1;
- } else {
+ } else if (reg_size == sizeof(u64)) {
/* Function argument */
- if (reg_size == sizeof(u64)) {
- mark_insn_zext(env, reg);
- mark_reg_read(env, reg, reg->parent, REG_LIVE_READ64);
- } else {
- mark_reg_read(env, reg, reg->parent, REG_LIVE_READ32);
- }
+ mark_insn_zext(env, reg);
}
}
@@ -15681,7 +15556,6 @@ static int check_alu_op(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn)
*/
assign_scalar_id_before_mov(env, src_reg);
copy_register_state(dst_reg, src_reg);
- dst_reg->live |= REG_LIVE_WRITTEN;
dst_reg->subreg_def = DEF_NOT_SUBREG;
} else {
/* case: R1 = (s8, s16 s32)R2 */
@@ -15700,7 +15574,6 @@ static int check_alu_op(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn)
if (!no_sext)
dst_reg->id = 0;
coerce_reg_to_size_sx(dst_reg, insn->off >> 3);
- dst_reg->live |= REG_LIVE_WRITTEN;
dst_reg->subreg_def = DEF_NOT_SUBREG;
} else {
mark_reg_unknown(env, regs, insn->dst_reg);
@@ -15726,7 +15599,6 @@ static int check_alu_op(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn)
*/
if (!is_src_reg_u32)
dst_reg->id = 0;
- dst_reg->live |= REG_LIVE_WRITTEN;
dst_reg->subreg_def = env->insn_idx + 1;
} else {
/* case: W1 = (s8, s16)W2 */
@@ -15737,7 +15609,6 @@ static int check_alu_op(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn)
copy_register_state(dst_reg, src_reg);
if (!no_sext)
dst_reg->id = 0;
- dst_reg->live |= REG_LIVE_WRITTEN;
dst_reg->subreg_def = env->insn_idx + 1;
coerce_subreg_to_size_sx(dst_reg, insn->off >> 3);
}
@@ -18546,11 +18417,6 @@ static void clean_func_state(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
for (i = 0; i < st->allocated_stack / BPF_REG_SIZE; i++) {
if (!bpf_stack_slot_alive(env, st->frameno, i)) {
- if (st->stack[i].spilled_ptr.live & REG_LIVE_READ) {
- verifier_bug(env, "incorrect live marks #1 for insn %d frameno %d spi %d\n",
- env->insn_idx, st->frameno, i);
- env->internal_error = true;
- }
__mark_reg_not_init(env, &st->stack[i].spilled_ptr);
for (j = 0; j < BPF_REG_SIZE; j++)
st->stack[i].slot_type[j] = STACK_INVALID;
@@ -18579,25 +18445,23 @@ static void clean_verifier_state(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
* but a lot of states will get revised from liveness point of view when
* the verifier explores other branches.
* Example:
- * 1: r0 = 1
+ * 1: *(u64)(r10 - 8) = 1
* 2: if r1 == 100 goto pc+1
- * 3: r0 = 2
- * 4: exit
- * when the verifier reaches exit insn the register r0 in the state list of
- * insn 2 will be seen as !REG_LIVE_READ. Then the verifier pops the other_branch
- * of insn 2 and goes exploring further. At the insn 4 it will walk the
- * parentage chain from insn 4 into insn 2 and will mark r0 as REG_LIVE_READ.
+ * 3: *(u64)(r10 - 8) = 2
+ * 4: r0 = *(u64)(r10 - 8)
+ * 5: exit
+ * when the verifier reaches exit insn the stack slot -8 in the state list of
+ * insn 2 is not yet marked alive. Then the verifier pops the other_branch
+ * of insn 2 and goes exploring further. After the insn 4 read, liveness
+ * analysis would propagate read mark for -8 at insn 2.
*
* Since the verifier pushes the branch states as it sees them while exploring
* the program the condition of walking the branch instruction for the second
* time means that all states below this branch were already explored and
* their final liveness marks are already propagated.
* Hence when the verifier completes the search of state list in is_state_visited()
- * we can call this clean_live_states() function to mark all liveness states
- * as st->cleaned to indicate that 'parent' pointers of 'struct bpf_reg_state'
- * will not be used.
- * This function also clears the registers and stack for states that !READ
- * to simplify state merging.
+ * we can call this clean_live_states() function to clear dead the registers and stack
+ * slots to simplify state merging.
*
* Important note here that walking the same branch instruction in the callee
* doesn't meant that the states are DONE. The verifier has to compare
@@ -18772,7 +18636,6 @@ static struct bpf_reg_state unbound_reg;
static __init int unbound_reg_init(void)
{
__mark_reg_unknown_imprecise(&unbound_reg);
- unbound_reg.live |= REG_LIVE_READ;
return 0;
}
late_initcall(unbound_reg_init);
@@ -19067,91 +18930,6 @@ static bool states_equal(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
return true;
}
-/* Return 0 if no propagation happened. Return negative error code if error
- * happened. Otherwise, return the propagated bit.
- */
-static int propagate_liveness_reg(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
- struct bpf_reg_state *reg,
- struct bpf_reg_state *parent_reg)
-{
- u8 parent_flag = parent_reg->live & REG_LIVE_READ;
- u8 flag = reg->live & REG_LIVE_READ;
- int err;
-
- /* When comes here, read flags of PARENT_REG or REG could be any of
- * REG_LIVE_READ64, REG_LIVE_READ32, REG_LIVE_NONE. There is no need
- * of propagation if PARENT_REG has strongest REG_LIVE_READ64.
- */
- if (parent_flag == REG_LIVE_READ64 ||
- /* Or if there is no read flag from REG. */
- !flag ||
- /* Or if the read flag from REG is the same as PARENT_REG. */
- parent_flag == flag)
- return 0;
-
- err = mark_reg_read(env, reg, parent_reg, flag);
- if (err)
- return err;
-
- return flag;
-}
-
-/* A write screens off any subsequent reads; but write marks come from the
- * straight-line code between a state and its parent. When we arrive at an
- * equivalent state (jump target or such) we didn't arrive by the straight-line
- * code, so read marks in the state must propagate to the parent regardless
- * of the state's write marks. That's what 'parent == state->parent' comparison
- * in mark_reg_read() is for.
- */
-static int propagate_liveness(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
- const struct bpf_verifier_state *vstate,
- struct bpf_verifier_state *vparent,
- bool *changed)
-{
- struct bpf_reg_state *state_reg, *parent_reg;
- struct bpf_func_state *state, *parent;
- int i, frame, err = 0;
- bool tmp = false;
-
- changed = changed ?: &tmp;
- if (vparent->curframe != vstate->curframe) {
- WARN(1, "propagate_live: parent frame %d current frame %d\n",
- vparent->curframe, vstate->curframe);
- return -EFAULT;
- }
- /* Propagate read liveness of registers... */
- BUILD_BUG_ON(BPF_REG_FP + 1 != MAX_BPF_REG);
- for (frame = 0; frame <= vstate->curframe; frame++) {
- parent = vparent->frame[frame];
- state = vstate->frame[frame];
- parent_reg = parent->regs;
- state_reg = state->regs;
- /* We don't need to worry about FP liveness, it's read-only */
- for (i = frame < vstate->curframe ? BPF_REG_6 : 0; i < BPF_REG_FP; i++) {
- err = propagate_liveness_reg(env, &state_reg[i],
- &parent_reg[i]);
- if (err < 0)
- return err;
- *changed |= err > 0;
- if (err == REG_LIVE_READ64)
- mark_insn_zext(env, &parent_reg[i]);
- }
-
- /* Propagate stack slots. */
- for (i = 0; i < state->allocated_stack / BPF_REG_SIZE &&
- i < parent->allocated_stack / BPF_REG_SIZE; i++) {
- parent_reg = &parent->stack[i].spilled_ptr;
- state_reg = &state->stack[i].spilled_ptr;
- err = propagate_liveness_reg(env, state_reg,
- parent_reg);
- *changed |= err > 0;
- if (err < 0)
- return err;
- }
- }
- return 0;
-}
-
/* find precise scalars in the previous equivalent state and
* propagate them into the current state
*/
@@ -19171,8 +18949,7 @@ static int propagate_precision(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
first = true;
for (i = 0; i < BPF_REG_FP; i++, state_reg++) {
if (state_reg->type != SCALAR_VALUE ||
- !state_reg->precise ||
- !(state_reg->live & REG_LIVE_READ))
+ !state_reg->precise)
continue;
if (env->log.level & BPF_LOG_LEVEL2) {
if (first)
@@ -19189,8 +18966,7 @@ static int propagate_precision(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
continue;
state_reg = &state->stack[i].spilled_ptr;
if (state_reg->type != SCALAR_VALUE ||
- !state_reg->precise ||
- !(state_reg->live & REG_LIVE_READ))
+ !state_reg->precise)
continue;
if (env->log.level & BPF_LOG_LEVEL2) {
if (first)
@@ -19240,9 +19016,6 @@ static int propagate_backedges(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_scc_visi
changed = false;
for (backedge = visit->backedges; backedge; backedge = backedge->next) {
st = &backedge->state;
- err = propagate_liveness(env, st->equal_state, st, &changed);
- if (err)
- return err;
err = propagate_precision(env, st->equal_state, st, &changed);
if (err)
return err;
@@ -19266,7 +19039,7 @@ static bool states_maybe_looping(struct bpf_verifier_state *old,
fcur = cur->frame[fr];
for (i = 0; i < MAX_BPF_REG; i++)
if (memcmp(&fold->regs[i], &fcur->regs[i],
- offsetof(struct bpf_reg_state, parent)))
+ offsetof(struct bpf_reg_state, frameno)))
return false;
return true;
}
@@ -19364,7 +19137,7 @@ static int is_state_visited(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx)
struct bpf_verifier_state_list *sl;
struct bpf_verifier_state *cur = env->cur_state, *new;
bool force_new_state, add_new_state, loop;
- int i, j, n, err, states_cnt = 0;
+ int n, err, states_cnt = 0;
struct list_head *pos, *tmp, *head;
force_new_state = env->test_state_freq || is_force_checkpoint(env, insn_idx) ||
@@ -19521,20 +19294,7 @@ static int is_state_visited(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx)
loop = incomplete_read_marks(env, &sl->state);
if (states_equal(env, &sl->state, cur, loop ? RANGE_WITHIN : NOT_EXACT)) {
hit:
- if (env->internal_error)
- return -EFAULT;
sl->hit_cnt++;
- /* reached equivalent register/stack state,
- * prune the search.
- * Registers read by the continuation are read by us.
- * If we have any write marks in env->cur_state, they
- * will prevent corresponding reads in the continuation
- * from reaching our parent (an explored_state). Our
- * own state will get the read marks recorded, but
- * they'll be immediately forgotten as we're pruning
- * this state and will pop a new one.
- */
- err = propagate_liveness(env, &sl->state, cur, NULL);
/* if previous state reached the exit with precision and
* current state is equivalent to it (except precision marks)
@@ -19637,8 +19397,6 @@ static int is_state_visited(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx)
return 1;
}
miss:
- if (env->internal_error)
- return -EFAULT;
/* when new state is not going to be added do not increase miss count.
* Otherwise several loop iterations will remove the state
* recorded earlier. The goal of these heuristics is to have
@@ -19724,38 +19482,6 @@ static int is_state_visited(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx)
cur->dfs_depth = new->dfs_depth + 1;
clear_jmp_history(cur);
list_add(&new_sl->node, head);
-
- /* connect new state to parentage chain. Current frame needs all
- * registers connected. Only r6 - r9 of the callers are alive (pushed
- * to the stack implicitly by JITs) so in callers' frames connect just
- * r6 - r9 as an optimization. Callers will have r1 - r5 connected to
- * the state of the call instruction (with WRITTEN set), and r0 comes
- * from callee with its full parentage chain, anyway.
- */
- /* clear write marks in current state: the writes we did are not writes
- * our child did, so they don't screen off its reads from us.
- * (There are no read marks in current state, because reads always mark
- * their parent and current state never has children yet. Only
- * explored_states can get read marks.)
- */
- for (j = 0; j <= cur->curframe; j++) {
- for (i = j < cur->curframe ? BPF_REG_6 : 0; i < BPF_REG_FP; i++)
- cur->frame[j]->regs[i].parent = &new->frame[j]->regs[i];
- for (i = 0; i < BPF_REG_FP; i++)
- cur->frame[j]->regs[i].live = REG_LIVE_NONE;
- }
-
- /* all stack frames are accessible from callee, clear them all */
- for (j = 0; j <= cur->curframe; j++) {
- struct bpf_func_state *frame = cur->frame[j];
- struct bpf_func_state *newframe = new->frame[j];
-
- for (i = 0; i < frame->allocated_stack / BPF_REG_SIZE; i++) {
- frame->stack[i].spilled_ptr.live = REG_LIVE_NONE;
- frame->stack[i].spilled_ptr.parent =
- &newframe->stack[i].spilled_ptr;
- }
- }
return 0;
}
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/align.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/align.c
index 1d53a8561ee2..24c509ce4e5b 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/align.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/align.c
@@ -42,11 +42,11 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
.matches = {
{0, "R1", "ctx()"},
{0, "R10", "fp0"},
- {0, "R3_w", "2"},
- {1, "R3_w", "4"},
- {2, "R3_w", "8"},
- {3, "R3_w", "16"},
- {4, "R3_w", "32"},
+ {0, "R3", "2"},
+ {1, "R3", "4"},
+ {2, "R3", "8"},
+ {3, "R3", "16"},
+ {4, "R3", "32"},
},
},
{
@@ -70,17 +70,17 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
.matches = {
{0, "R1", "ctx()"},
{0, "R10", "fp0"},
- {0, "R3_w", "1"},
- {1, "R3_w", "2"},
- {2, "R3_w", "4"},
- {3, "R3_w", "8"},
- {4, "R3_w", "16"},
- {5, "R3_w", "1"},
- {6, "R4_w", "32"},
- {7, "R4_w", "16"},
- {8, "R4_w", "8"},
- {9, "R4_w", "4"},
- {10, "R4_w", "2"},
+ {0, "R3", "1"},
+ {1, "R3", "2"},
+ {2, "R3", "4"},
+ {3, "R3", "8"},
+ {4, "R3", "16"},
+ {5, "R3", "1"},
+ {6, "R4", "32"},
+ {7, "R4", "16"},
+ {8, "R4", "8"},
+ {9, "R4", "4"},
+ {10, "R4", "2"},
},
},
{
@@ -99,12 +99,12 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
.matches = {
{0, "R1", "ctx()"},
{0, "R10", "fp0"},
- {0, "R3_w", "4"},
- {1, "R3_w", "8"},
- {2, "R3_w", "10"},
- {3, "R4_w", "8"},
- {4, "R4_w", "12"},
- {5, "R4_w", "14"},
+ {0, "R3", "4"},
+ {1, "R3", "8"},
+ {2, "R3", "10"},
+ {3, "R4", "8"},
+ {4, "R4", "12"},
+ {5, "R4", "14"},
},
},
{
@@ -121,10 +121,10 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
.matches = {
{0, "R1", "ctx()"},
{0, "R10", "fp0"},
- {0, "R3_w", "7"},
- {1, "R3_w", "7"},
- {2, "R3_w", "14"},
- {3, "R3_w", "56"},
+ {0, "R3", "7"},
+ {1, "R3", "7"},
+ {2, "R3", "14"},
+ {3, "R3", "56"},
},
},
@@ -162,19 +162,19 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
},
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
.matches = {
- {6, "R0_w", "pkt(off=8,r=8)"},
- {6, "R3_w", "var_off=(0x0; 0xff)"},
- {7, "R3_w", "var_off=(0x0; 0x1fe)"},
- {8, "R3_w", "var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc)"},
- {9, "R3_w", "var_off=(0x0; 0x7f8)"},
- {10, "R3_w", "var_off=(0x0; 0xff0)"},
- {12, "R3_w", "pkt_end()"},
- {17, "R4_w", "var_off=(0x0; 0xff)"},
- {18, "R4_w", "var_off=(0x0; 0x1fe0)"},
- {19, "R4_w", "var_off=(0x0; 0xff0)"},
- {20, "R4_w", "var_off=(0x0; 0x7f8)"},
- {21, "R4_w", "var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc)"},
- {22, "R4_w", "var_off=(0x0; 0x1fe)"},
+ {6, "R0", "pkt(off=8,r=8)"},
+ {6, "R3", "var_off=(0x0; 0xff)"},
+ {7, "R3", "var_off=(0x0; 0x1fe)"},
+ {8, "R3", "var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc)"},
+ {9, "R3", "var_off=(0x0; 0x7f8)"},
+ {10, "R3", "var_off=(0x0; 0xff0)"},
+ {12, "R3", "pkt_end()"},
+ {17, "R4", "var_off=(0x0; 0xff)"},
+ {18, "R4", "var_off=(0x0; 0x1fe0)"},
+ {19, "R4", "var_off=(0x0; 0xff0)"},
+ {20, "R4", "var_off=(0x0; 0x7f8)"},
+ {21, "R4", "var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc)"},
+ {22, "R4", "var_off=(0x0; 0x1fe)"},
},
},
{
@@ -195,16 +195,16 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
},
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
.matches = {
- {6, "R3_w", "var_off=(0x0; 0xff)"},
- {7, "R4_w", "var_off=(0x0; 0xff)"},
- {8, "R4_w", "var_off=(0x0; 0xff)"},
- {9, "R4_w", "var_off=(0x0; 0xff)"},
- {10, "R4_w", "var_off=(0x0; 0x1fe)"},
- {11, "R4_w", "var_off=(0x0; 0xff)"},
- {12, "R4_w", "var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc)"},
- {13, "R4_w", "var_off=(0x0; 0xff)"},
- {14, "R4_w", "var_off=(0x0; 0x7f8)"},
- {15, "R4_w", "var_off=(0x0; 0xff0)"},
+ {6, "R3", "var_off=(0x0; 0xff)"},
+ {7, "R4", "var_off=(0x0; 0xff)"},
+ {8, "R4", "var_off=(0x0; 0xff)"},
+ {9, "R4", "var_off=(0x0; 0xff)"},
+ {10, "R4", "var_off=(0x0; 0x1fe)"},
+ {11, "R4", "var_off=(0x0; 0xff)"},
+ {12, "R4", "var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc)"},
+ {13, "R4", "var_off=(0x0; 0xff)"},
+ {14, "R4", "var_off=(0x0; 0x7f8)"},
+ {15, "R4", "var_off=(0x0; 0xff0)"},
},
},
{
@@ -235,14 +235,14 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
},
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
.matches = {
- {2, "R5_w", "pkt(r=0)"},
- {4, "R5_w", "pkt(off=14,r=0)"},
- {5, "R4_w", "pkt(off=14,r=0)"},
+ {2, "R5", "pkt(r=0)"},
+ {4, "R5", "pkt(off=14,r=0)"},
+ {5, "R4", "pkt(off=14,r=0)"},
{9, "R2", "pkt(r=18)"},
{10, "R5", "pkt(off=14,r=18)"},
- {10, "R4_w", "var_off=(0x0; 0xff)"},
- {13, "R4_w", "var_off=(0x0; 0xffff)"},
- {14, "R4_w", "var_off=(0x0; 0xffff)"},
+ {10, "R4", "var_off=(0x0; 0xff)"},
+ {13, "R4", "var_off=(0x0; 0xffff)"},
+ {14, "R4", "var_off=(0x0; 0xffff)"},
},
},
{
@@ -299,12 +299,12 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
/* Calculated offset in R6 has unknown value, but known
* alignment of 4.
*/
- {6, "R2_w", "pkt(r=8)"},
- {7, "R6_w", "var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc)"},
+ {6, "R2", "pkt(r=8)"},
+ {7, "R6", "var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc)"},
/* Offset is added to packet pointer R5, resulting in
* known fixed offset, and variable offset from R6.
*/
- {11, "R5_w", "pkt(id=1,off=14,"},
+ {11, "R5", "pkt(id=1,off=14,"},
/* At the time the word size load is performed from R5,
* it's total offset is NET_IP_ALIGN + reg->off (0) +
* reg->aux_off (14) which is 16. Then the variable
@@ -320,12 +320,12 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
* instruction to validate R5 state. We also check
* that R4 is what it should be in such case.
*/
- {18, "R4_w", "var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc)"},
- {18, "R5_w", "var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc)"},
+ {18, "R4", "var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc)"},
+ {18, "R5", "var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc)"},
/* Constant offset is added to R5, resulting in
* reg->off of 14.
*/
- {19, "R5_w", "pkt(id=2,off=14,"},
+ {19, "R5", "pkt(id=2,off=14,"},
/* At the time the word size load is performed from R5,
* its total fixed offset is NET_IP_ALIGN + reg->off
* (14) which is 16. Then the variable offset is 4-byte
@@ -337,21 +337,21 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
/* Constant offset is added to R5 packet pointer,
* resulting in reg->off value of 14.
*/
- {26, "R5_w", "pkt(off=14,r=8)"},
+ {26, "R5", "pkt(off=14,r=8)"},
/* Variable offset is added to R5, resulting in a
* variable offset of (4n). See comment for insn #18
* for R4 = R5 trick.
*/
- {28, "R4_w", "var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc)"},
- {28, "R5_w", "var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc)"},
+ {28, "R4", "var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc)"},
+ {28, "R5", "var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc)"},
/* Constant is added to R5 again, setting reg->off to 18. */
- {29, "R5_w", "pkt(id=3,off=18,"},
+ {29, "R5", "pkt(id=3,off=18,"},
/* And once more we add a variable; resulting var_off
* is still (4n), fixed offset is not changed.
* Also, we create a new reg->id.
*/
- {31, "R4_w", "var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc)"},
- {31, "R5_w", "var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc)"},
+ {31, "R4", "var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc)"},
+ {31, "R5", "var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc)"},
/* At the time the word size load is performed from R5,
* its total fixed offset is NET_IP_ALIGN + reg->off (18)
* which is 20. Then the variable offset is (4n), so
@@ -397,12 +397,12 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
/* Calculated offset in R6 has unknown value, but known
* alignment of 4.
*/
- {6, "R2_w", "pkt(r=8)"},
- {7, "R6_w", "var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc)"},
+ {6, "R2", "pkt(r=8)"},
+ {7, "R6", "var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc)"},
/* Adding 14 makes R6 be (4n+2) */
- {8, "R6_w", "var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc)"},
+ {8, "R6", "var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc)"},
/* Packet pointer has (4n+2) offset */
- {11, "R5_w", "var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc)"},
+ {11, "R5", "var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc)"},
{12, "R4", "var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc)"},
/* At the time the word size load is performed from R5,
* its total fixed offset is NET_IP_ALIGN + reg->off (0)
@@ -414,11 +414,11 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
/* Newly read value in R6 was shifted left by 2, so has
* known alignment of 4.
*/
- {17, "R6_w", "var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc)"},
+ {17, "R6", "var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc)"},
/* Added (4n) to packet pointer's (4n+2) var_off, giving
* another (4n+2).
*/
- {19, "R5_w", "var_off=(0x2; 0xffc)"},
+ {19, "R5", "var_off=(0x2; 0xffc)"},
{20, "R4", "var_off=(0x2; 0xffc)"},
/* At the time the word size load is performed from R5,
* its total fixed offset is NET_IP_ALIGN + reg->off (0)
@@ -459,18 +459,18 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
.result = REJECT,
.matches = {
- {3, "R5_w", "pkt_end()"},
+ {3, "R5", "pkt_end()"},
/* (ptr - ptr) << 2 == unknown, (4n) */
- {5, "R5_w", "var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffffffffffc)"},
+ {5, "R5", "var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffffffffffc)"},
/* (4n) + 14 == (4n+2). We blow our bounds, because
* the add could overflow.
*/
- {6, "R5_w", "var_off=(0x2; 0xfffffffffffffffc)"},
+ {6, "R5", "var_off=(0x2; 0xfffffffffffffffc)"},
/* Checked s>=0 */
{9, "R5", "var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffffffffffc)"},
/* packet pointer + nonnegative (4n+2) */
- {11, "R6_w", "var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffffffffffc)"},
- {12, "R4_w", "var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffffffffffc)"},
+ {11, "R6", "var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffffffffffc)"},
+ {12, "R4", "var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffffffffffc)"},
/* NET_IP_ALIGN + (4n+2) == (4n), alignment is fine.
* We checked the bounds, but it might have been able
* to overflow if the packet pointer started in the
@@ -478,7 +478,7 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
* So we did not get a 'range' on R6, and the access
* attempt will fail.
*/
- {15, "R6_w", "var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffffffffffc)"},
+ {15, "R6", "var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffffffffffc)"},
}
},
{
@@ -513,12 +513,12 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
/* Calculated offset in R6 has unknown value, but known
* alignment of 4.
*/
- {6, "R2_w", "pkt(r=8)"},
- {8, "R6_w", "var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc)"},
+ {6, "R2", "pkt(r=8)"},
+ {8, "R6", "var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc)"},
/* Adding 14 makes R6 be (4n+2) */
- {9, "R6_w", "var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc)"},
+ {9, "R6", "var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc)"},
/* New unknown value in R7 is (4n) */
- {10, "R7_w", "var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc)"},
+ {10, "R7", "var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc)"},
/* Subtracting it from R6 blows our unsigned bounds */
{11, "R6", "var_off=(0x2; 0xfffffffffffffffc)"},
/* Checked s>= 0 */
@@ -566,16 +566,16 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
/* Calculated offset in R6 has unknown value, but known
* alignment of 4.
*/
- {6, "R2_w", "pkt(r=8)"},
- {9, "R6_w", "var_off=(0x0; 0x3c)"},
+ {6, "R2", "pkt(r=8)"},
+ {9, "R6", "var_off=(0x0; 0x3c)"},
/* Adding 14 makes R6 be (4n+2) */
- {10, "R6_w", "var_off=(0x2; 0x7c)"},
+ {10, "R6", "var_off=(0x2; 0x7c)"},
/* Subtracting from packet pointer overflows ubounds */
- {13, "R5_w", "var_off=(0xffffffffffffff82; 0x7c)"},
+ {13, "R5", "var_off=(0xffffffffffffff82; 0x7c)"},
/* New unknown value in R7 is (4n), >= 76 */
- {14, "R7_w", "var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc)"},
+ {14, "R7", "var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc)"},
/* Adding it to packet pointer gives nice bounds again */
- {16, "R5_w", "var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc)"},
+ {16, "R5", "var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc)"},
/* At the time the word size load is performed from R5,
* its total fixed offset is NET_IP_ALIGN + reg->off (0)
* which is 2. Then the variable offset is (4n+2), so
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/spin_lock.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/spin_lock.c
index e3ea5dc2f697..254fbfeab06a 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/spin_lock.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/spin_lock.c
@@ -13,22 +13,22 @@ static struct {
const char *err_msg;
} spin_lock_fail_tests[] = {
{ "lock_id_kptr_preserve",
- "5: (bf) r1 = r0 ; R0_w=ptr_foo(id=2,ref_obj_id=2) "
- "R1_w=ptr_foo(id=2,ref_obj_id=2) refs=2\n6: (85) call bpf_this_cpu_ptr#154\n"
+ "5: (bf) r1 = r0 ; R0=ptr_foo(id=2,ref_obj_id=2) "
+ "R1=ptr_foo(id=2,ref_obj_id=2) refs=2\n6: (85) call bpf_this_cpu_ptr#154\n"
"R1 type=ptr_ expected=percpu_ptr_" },
{ "lock_id_global_zero",
- "; R1_w=map_value(map=.data.A,ks=4,vs=4)\n2: (85) call bpf_this_cpu_ptr#154\n"
+ "; R1=map_value(map=.data.A,ks=4,vs=4)\n2: (85) call bpf_this_cpu_ptr#154\n"
"R1 type=map_value expected=percpu_ptr_" },
{ "lock_id_mapval_preserve",
"[0-9]\\+: (bf) r1 = r0 ;"
- " R0_w=map_value(id=1,map=array_map,ks=4,vs=8)"
- " R1_w=map_value(id=1,map=array_map,ks=4,vs=8)\n"
+ " R0=map_value(id=1,map=array_map,ks=4,vs=8)"
+ " R1=map_value(id=1,map=array_map,ks=4,vs=8)\n"
"[0-9]\\+: (85) call bpf_this_cpu_ptr#154\n"
"R1 type=map_value expected=percpu_ptr_" },
{ "lock_id_innermapval_preserve",
"[0-9]\\+: (bf) r1 = r0 ;"
" R0=map_value(id=2,ks=4,vs=8)"
- " R1_w=map_value(id=2,ks=4,vs=8)\n"
+ " R1=map_value(id=2,ks=4,vs=8)\n"
"[0-9]\\+: (85) call bpf_this_cpu_ptr#154\n"
"R1 type=map_value expected=percpu_ptr_" },
{ "lock_id_mismatch_kptr_kptr", "bpf_spin_unlock of different lock" },
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_veristat.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_veristat.c
index 367f47e4a936..b38c16b4247f 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_veristat.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_veristat.c
@@ -75,26 +75,26 @@ static void test_set_global_vars_succeeds(void)
" -vl2 > %s", fix->veristat, fix->tmpfile);
read(fix->fd, fix->output, fix->sz);
- __CHECK_STR("_w=0xf000000000000001 ", "var_s64 = 0xf000000000000001");
- __CHECK_STR("_w=0xfedcba9876543210 ", "var_u64 = 0xfedcba9876543210");
- __CHECK_STR("_w=0x80000000 ", "var_s32 = -0x80000000");
- __CHECK_STR("_w=0x76543210 ", "var_u32 = 0x76543210");
- __CHECK_STR("_w=0x8000 ", "var_s16 = -32768");
- __CHECK_STR("_w=0xecec ", "var_u16 = 60652");
- __CHECK_STR("_w=128 ", "var_s8 = -128");
- __CHECK_STR("_w=255 ", "var_u8 = 255");
- __CHECK_STR("_w=11 ", "var_ea = EA2");
- __CHECK_STR("_w=12 ", "var_eb = EB2");
- __CHECK_STR("_w=13 ", "var_ec = EC2");
- __CHECK_STR("_w=1 ", "var_b = 1");
- __CHECK_STR("_w=170 ", "struct1[2].struct2[1][2].u.var_u8[2]=170");
- __CHECK_STR("_w=0xaaaa ", "union1.var_u16 = 0xaaaa");
- __CHECK_STR("_w=171 ", "arr[3]= 171");
- __CHECK_STR("_w=172 ", "arr[EA2] =172");
- __CHECK_STR("_w=10 ", "enum_arr[EC2]=EA3");
- __CHECK_STR("_w=173 ", "matrix[31][7][11]=173");
- __CHECK_STR("_w=174 ", "struct1[2].struct2[1][2].u.mat[5][3]=174");
- __CHECK_STR("_w=175 ", "struct11[7][5].struct2[0][1].u.mat[3][0]=175");
+ __CHECK_STR("=0xf000000000000001 ", "var_s64 = 0xf000000000000001");
+ __CHECK_STR("=0xfedcba9876543210 ", "var_u64 = 0xfedcba9876543210");
+ __CHECK_STR("=0x80000000 ", "var_s32 = -0x80000000");
+ __CHECK_STR("=0x76543210 ", "var_u32 = 0x76543210");
+ __CHECK_STR("=0x8000 ", "var_s16 = -32768");
+ __CHECK_STR("=0xecec ", "var_u16 = 60652");
+ __CHECK_STR("=128 ", "var_s8 = -128");
+ __CHECK_STR("=255 ", "var_u8 = 255");
+ __CHECK_STR("=11 ", "var_ea = EA2");
+ __CHECK_STR("=12 ", "var_eb = EB2");
+ __CHECK_STR("=13 ", "var_ec = EC2");
+ __CHECK_STR("=1 ", "var_b = 1");
+ __CHECK_STR("=170 ", "struct1[2].struct2[1][2].u.var_u8[2]=170");
+ __CHECK_STR("=0xaaaa ", "union1.var_u16 = 0xaaaa");
+ __CHECK_STR("=171 ", "arr[3]= 171");
+ __CHECK_STR("=172 ", "arr[EA2] =172");
+ __CHECK_STR("=10 ", "enum_arr[EC2]=EA3");
+ __CHECK_STR("=173 ", "matrix[31][7][11]=173");
+ __CHECK_STR("=174 ", "struct1[2].struct2[1][2].u.mat[5][3]=174");
+ __CHECK_STR("=175 ", "struct11[7][5].struct2[0][1].u.mat[3][0]=175");
out:
teardown_fixture(fix);
@@ -117,8 +117,8 @@ static void test_set_global_vars_from_file_succeeds(void)
SYS(out, "%s set_global_vars.bpf.o -G \"@%s\" -vl2 > %s",
fix->veristat, input_file, fix->tmpfile);
read(fix->fd, fix->output, fix->sz);
- __CHECK_STR("_w=0x8000 ", "var_s16 = -32768");
- __CHECK_STR("_w=0xecec ", "var_u16 = 60652");
+ __CHECK_STR("=0x8000 ", "var_s16 = -32768");
+ __CHECK_STR("=0xecec ", "var_u16 = 60652");
out:
close(fd);
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/exceptions_assert.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/exceptions_assert.c
index 5e0a1ca96d4e..a01c2736890f 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/exceptions_assert.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/exceptions_assert.c
@@ -18,43 +18,43 @@
return *(u64 *)num; \
}
-__msg(": R0_w=0xffffffff80000000")
+__msg(": R0=0xffffffff80000000")
check_assert(s64, ==, eq_int_min, INT_MIN);
-__msg(": R0_w=0x7fffffff")
+__msg(": R0=0x7fffffff")
check_assert(s64, ==, eq_int_max, INT_MAX);
-__msg(": R0_w=0")
+__msg(": R0=0")
check_assert(s64, ==, eq_zero, 0);
-__msg(": R0_w=0x8000000000000000 R1_w=0x8000000000000000")
+__msg(": R0=0x8000000000000000 R1=0x8000000000000000")
check_assert(s64, ==, eq_llong_min, LLONG_MIN);
-__msg(": R0_w=0x7fffffffffffffff R1_w=0x7fffffffffffffff")
+__msg(": R0=0x7fffffffffffffff R1=0x7fffffffffffffff")
check_assert(s64, ==, eq_llong_max, LLONG_MAX);
-__msg(": R0_w=scalar(id=1,smax=0x7ffffffe)")
+__msg(": R0=scalar(id=1,smax=0x7ffffffe)")
check_assert(s64, <, lt_pos, INT_MAX);
-__msg(": R0_w=scalar(id=1,smax=-1,umin=0x8000000000000000,var_off=(0x8000000000000000; 0x7fffffffffffffff))")
+__msg(": R0=scalar(id=1,smax=-1,umin=0x8000000000000000,var_off=(0x8000000000000000; 0x7fffffffffffffff))")
check_assert(s64, <, lt_zero, 0);
-__msg(": R0_w=scalar(id=1,smax=0xffffffff7fffffff")
+__msg(": R0=scalar(id=1,smax=0xffffffff7fffffff")
check_assert(s64, <, lt_neg, INT_MIN);
-__msg(": R0_w=scalar(id=1,smax=0x7fffffff)")
+__msg(": R0=scalar(id=1,smax=0x7fffffff)")
check_assert(s64, <=, le_pos, INT_MAX);
-__msg(": R0_w=scalar(id=1,smax=0)")
+__msg(": R0=scalar(id=1,smax=0)")
check_assert(s64, <=, le_zero, 0);
-__msg(": R0_w=scalar(id=1,smax=0xffffffff80000000")
+__msg(": R0=scalar(id=1,smax=0xffffffff80000000")
check_assert(s64, <=, le_neg, INT_MIN);
-__msg(": R0_w=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=0x80000000,umax=0x7fffffffffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fffffffffffffff))")
+__msg(": R0=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=0x80000000,umax=0x7fffffffffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fffffffffffffff))")
check_assert(s64, >, gt_pos, INT_MAX);
-__msg(": R0_w=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=1,umax=0x7fffffffffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fffffffffffffff))")
+__msg(": R0=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=1,umax=0x7fffffffffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fffffffffffffff))")
check_assert(s64, >, gt_zero, 0);
-__msg(": R0_w=scalar(id=1,smin=0xffffffff80000001")
+__msg(": R0=scalar(id=1,smin=0xffffffff80000001")
check_assert(s64, >, gt_neg, INT_MIN);
-__msg(": R0_w=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=0x7fffffff,umax=0x7fffffffffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fffffffffffffff))")
+__msg(": R0=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=0x7fffffff,umax=0x7fffffffffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fffffffffffffff))")
check_assert(s64, >=, ge_pos, INT_MAX);
-__msg(": R0_w=scalar(id=1,smin=0,umax=0x7fffffffffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fffffffffffffff))")
+__msg(": R0=scalar(id=1,smin=0,umax=0x7fffffffffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fffffffffffffff))")
check_assert(s64, >=, ge_zero, 0);
-__msg(": R0_w=scalar(id=1,smin=0xffffffff80000000")
+__msg(": R0=scalar(id=1,smin=0xffffffff80000000")
check_assert(s64, >=, ge_neg, INT_MIN);
SEC("?tc")
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/iters_state_safety.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/iters_state_safety.c
index b381ac0c736c..d273b46dfc7c 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/iters_state_safety.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/iters_state_safety.c
@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ int force_clang_to_emit_btf_for_externs(void *ctx)
SEC("?raw_tp")
__success __log_level(2)
-__msg("fp-8_w=iter_num(ref_id=1,state=active,depth=0)")
+__msg("fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=1,state=active,depth=0)")
int create_and_destroy(void *ctx)
{
struct bpf_iter_num iter;
@@ -196,7 +196,7 @@ int leak_iter_from_subprog_fail(void *ctx)
SEC("?raw_tp")
__success __log_level(2)
-__msg("fp-8_w=iter_num(ref_id=1,state=active,depth=0)")
+__msg("fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=1,state=active,depth=0)")
int valid_stack_reuse(void *ctx)
{
struct bpf_iter_num iter;
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/iters_testmod_seq.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/iters_testmod_seq.c
index 6543d5b6e0a9..83791348bed5 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/iters_testmod_seq.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/iters_testmod_seq.c
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ __s64 res_empty;
SEC("raw_tp/sys_enter")
__success __log_level(2)
-__msg("fp-16_w=iter_testmod_seq(ref_id=1,state=active,depth=0)")
+__msg("fp-16=iter_testmod_seq(ref_id=1,state=active,depth=0)")
__msg("fp-16=iter_testmod_seq(ref_id=1,state=drained,depth=0)")
__msg("call bpf_iter_testmod_seq_destroy")
int testmod_seq_empty(const void *ctx)
@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ __s64 res_full;
SEC("raw_tp/sys_enter")
__success __log_level(2)
-__msg("fp-16_w=iter_testmod_seq(ref_id=1,state=active,depth=0)")
+__msg("fp-16=iter_testmod_seq(ref_id=1,state=active,depth=0)")
__msg("fp-16=iter_testmod_seq(ref_id=1,state=drained,depth=0)")
__msg("call bpf_iter_testmod_seq_destroy")
int testmod_seq_full(const void *ctx)
@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ static volatile int zero = 0;
SEC("raw_tp/sys_enter")
__success __log_level(2)
-__msg("fp-16_w=iter_testmod_seq(ref_id=1,state=active,depth=0)")
+__msg("fp-16=iter_testmod_seq(ref_id=1,state=active,depth=0)")
__msg("fp-16=iter_testmod_seq(ref_id=1,state=drained,depth=0)")
__msg("call bpf_iter_testmod_seq_destroy")
int testmod_seq_truncated(const void *ctx)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/mem_rdonly_untrusted.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/mem_rdonly_untrusted.c
index 4f94c971ae86..3b984b6ae7c0 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/mem_rdonly_untrusted.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/mem_rdonly_untrusted.c
@@ -8,8 +8,8 @@
SEC("tp_btf/sys_enter")
__success
__log_level(2)
-__msg("r8 = *(u64 *)(r7 +0) ; R7_w=ptr_nameidata(off={{[0-9]+}}) R8_w=rdonly_untrusted_mem(sz=0)")
-__msg("r9 = *(u8 *)(r8 +0) ; R8_w=rdonly_untrusted_mem(sz=0) R9_w=scalar")
+__msg("r8 = *(u64 *)(r7 +0) ; R7=ptr_nameidata(off={{[0-9]+}}) R8=rdonly_untrusted_mem(sz=0)")
+__msg("r9 = *(u8 *)(r8 +0) ; R8=rdonly_untrusted_mem(sz=0) R9=scalar")
int btf_id_to_ptr_mem(void *ctx)
{
struct task_struct *task;
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bounds.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bounds.c
index fbccc20555f4..0a72e0228ea9 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bounds.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bounds.c
@@ -926,7 +926,7 @@ l1_%=: r0 = 0; \
SEC("socket")
__description("bounds check for non const xor src dst")
__success __log_level(2)
-__msg("5: (af) r0 ^= r6 ; R0_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=431,var_off=(0x0; 0x1af))")
+__msg("5: (af) r0 ^= r6 ; R0=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=431,var_off=(0x0; 0x1af))")
__naked void non_const_xor_src_dst(void)
{
asm volatile (" \
@@ -947,7 +947,7 @@ __naked void non_const_xor_src_dst(void)
SEC("socket")
__description("bounds check for non const or src dst")
__success __log_level(2)
-__msg("5: (4f) r0 |= r6 ; R0_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=431,var_off=(0x0; 0x1af))")
+__msg("5: (4f) r0 |= r6 ; R0=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=431,var_off=(0x0; 0x1af))")
__naked void non_const_or_src_dst(void)
{
asm volatile (" \
@@ -968,7 +968,7 @@ __naked void non_const_or_src_dst(void)
SEC("socket")
__description("bounds check for non const mul regs")
__success __log_level(2)
-__msg("5: (2f) r0 *= r6 ; R0_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=3825,var_off=(0x0; 0xfff))")
+__msg("5: (2f) r0 *= r6 ; R0=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=3825,var_off=(0x0; 0xfff))")
__naked void non_const_mul_regs(void)
{
asm volatile (" \
@@ -1241,7 +1241,7 @@ l0_%=: r0 = 0; \
SEC("tc")
__description("multiply mixed sign bounds. test 1")
__success __log_level(2)
-__msg("r6 *= r7 {{.*}}; R6_w=scalar(smin=umin=0x1bc16d5cd4927ee1,smax=umax=0x1bc16d674ec80000,smax32=0x7ffffeff,umax32=0xfffffeff,var_off=(0x1bc16d4000000000; 0x3ffffffeff))")
+__msg("r6 *= r7 {{.*}}; R6=scalar(smin=umin=0x1bc16d5cd4927ee1,smax=umax=0x1bc16d674ec80000,smax32=0x7ffffeff,umax32=0xfffffeff,var_off=(0x1bc16d4000000000; 0x3ffffffeff))")
__naked void mult_mixed0_sign(void)
{
asm volatile (
@@ -1264,7 +1264,7 @@ __naked void mult_mixed0_sign(void)
SEC("tc")
__description("multiply mixed sign bounds. test 2")
__success __log_level(2)
-__msg("r6 *= r7 {{.*}}; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=-100,smax=smax32=200)")
+__msg("r6 *= r7 {{.*}}; R6=scalar(smin=smin32=-100,smax=smax32=200)")
__naked void mult_mixed1_sign(void)
{
asm volatile (
@@ -1287,7 +1287,7 @@ __naked void mult_mixed1_sign(void)
SEC("tc")
__description("multiply negative bounds")
__success __log_level(2)
-__msg("r6 *= r7 {{.*}}; R6_w=scalar(smin=umin=smin32=umin32=0x3ff280b0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=0x3fff0001,var_off=(0x3ff00000; 0xf81ff))")
+__msg("r6 *= r7 {{.*}}; R6=scalar(smin=umin=smin32=umin32=0x3ff280b0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=0x3fff0001,var_off=(0x3ff00000; 0xf81ff))")
__naked void mult_sign_bounds(void)
{
asm volatile (
@@ -1311,7 +1311,7 @@ __naked void mult_sign_bounds(void)
SEC("tc")
__description("multiply bounds that don't cross signed boundary")
__success __log_level(2)
-__msg("r8 *= r6 {{.*}}; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=11,var_off=(0x0; 0xb)) R8_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0x7b96bb0a94a3a7cd,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fffffffffffffff))")
+__msg("r8 *= r6 {{.*}}; R6=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=11,var_off=(0x0; 0xb)) R8=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0x7b96bb0a94a3a7cd,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fffffffffffffff))")
__naked void mult_no_sign_crossing(void)
{
asm volatile (
@@ -1331,7 +1331,7 @@ __naked void mult_no_sign_crossing(void)
SEC("tc")
__description("multiplication overflow, result in unbounded reg. test 1")
__success __log_level(2)
-__msg("r6 *= r7 {{.*}}; R6_w=scalar()")
+__msg("r6 *= r7 {{.*}}; R6=scalar()")
__naked void mult_unsign_ovf(void)
{
asm volatile (
@@ -1353,7 +1353,7 @@ __naked void mult_unsign_ovf(void)
SEC("tc")
__description("multiplication overflow, result in unbounded reg. test 2")
__success __log_level(2)
-__msg("r6 *= r7 {{.*}}; R6_w=scalar()")
+__msg("r6 *= r7 {{.*}}; R6=scalar()")
__naked void mult_sign_ovf(void)
{
asm volatile (
@@ -1376,7 +1376,7 @@ __naked void mult_sign_ovf(void)
SEC("socket")
__description("64-bit addition, all outcomes overflow")
__success __log_level(2)
-__msg("5: (0f) r3 += r3 {{.*}} R3_w=scalar(umin=0x4000000000000000,umax=0xfffffffffffffffe)")
+__msg("5: (0f) r3 += r3 {{.*}} R3=scalar(umin=0x4000000000000000,umax=0xfffffffffffffffe)")
__retval(0)
__naked void add64_full_overflow(void)
{
@@ -1396,7 +1396,7 @@ __naked void add64_full_overflow(void)
SEC("socket")
__description("64-bit addition, partial overflow, result in unbounded reg")
__success __log_level(2)
-__msg("4: (0f) r3 += r3 {{.*}} R3_w=scalar()")
+__msg("4: (0f) r3 += r3 {{.*}} R3=scalar()")
__retval(0)
__naked void add64_partial_overflow(void)
{
@@ -1416,7 +1416,7 @@ __naked void add64_partial_overflow(void)
SEC("socket")
__description("32-bit addition overflow, all outcomes overflow")
__success __log_level(2)
-__msg("4: (0c) w3 += w3 {{.*}} R3_w=scalar(smin=umin=umin32=0x40000000,smax=umax=umax32=0xfffffffe,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff))")
+__msg("4: (0c) w3 += w3 {{.*}} R3=scalar(smin=umin=umin32=0x40000000,smax=umax=umax32=0xfffffffe,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff))")
__retval(0)
__naked void add32_full_overflow(void)
{
@@ -1436,7 +1436,7 @@ __naked void add32_full_overflow(void)
SEC("socket")
__description("32-bit addition, partial overflow, result in unbounded u32 bounds")
__success __log_level(2)
-__msg("4: (0c) w3 += w3 {{.*}} R3_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff))")
+__msg("4: (0c) w3 += w3 {{.*}} R3=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff))")
__retval(0)
__naked void add32_partial_overflow(void)
{
@@ -1456,7 +1456,7 @@ __naked void add32_partial_overflow(void)
SEC("socket")
__description("64-bit subtraction, all outcomes underflow")
__success __log_level(2)
-__msg("6: (1f) r3 -= r1 {{.*}} R3_w=scalar(umin=1,umax=0x8000000000000000)")
+__msg("6: (1f) r3 -= r1 {{.*}} R3=scalar(umin=1,umax=0x8000000000000000)")
__retval(0)
__naked void sub64_full_overflow(void)
{
@@ -1477,7 +1477,7 @@ __naked void sub64_full_overflow(void)
SEC("socket")
__description("64-bit subtraction, partial overflow, result in unbounded reg")
__success __log_level(2)
-__msg("3: (1f) r3 -= r2 {{.*}} R3_w=scalar()")
+__msg("3: (1f) r3 -= r2 {{.*}} R3=scalar()")
__retval(0)
__naked void sub64_partial_overflow(void)
{
@@ -1496,7 +1496,7 @@ __naked void sub64_partial_overflow(void)
SEC("socket")
__description("32-bit subtraction overflow, all outcomes underflow")
__success __log_level(2)
-__msg("5: (1c) w3 -= w1 {{.*}} R3_w=scalar(smin=umin=umin32=1,smax=umax=umax32=0x80000000,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff))")
+__msg("5: (1c) w3 -= w1 {{.*}} R3=scalar(smin=umin=umin32=1,smax=umax=umax32=0x80000000,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff))")
__retval(0)
__naked void sub32_full_overflow(void)
{
@@ -1517,7 +1517,7 @@ __naked void sub32_full_overflow(void)
SEC("socket")
__description("32-bit subtraction, partial overflow, result in unbounded u32 bounds")
__success __log_level(2)
-__msg("3: (1c) w3 -= w2 {{.*}} R3_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff))")
+__msg("3: (1c) w3 -= w2 {{.*}} R3=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff))")
__retval(0)
__naked void sub32_partial_overflow(void)
{
@@ -1617,7 +1617,7 @@ l0_%=: r0 = 0; \
SEC("socket")
__description("bounds deduction cross sign boundary, positive overlap")
__success __log_level(2) __flag(BPF_F_TEST_REG_INVARIANTS)
-__msg("3: (2d) if r0 > r1 {{.*}} R0_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=127,var_off=(0x0; 0x7f))")
+__msg("3: (2d) if r0 > r1 {{.*}} R0=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=127,var_off=(0x0; 0x7f))")
__retval(0)
__naked void bounds_deduct_positive_overlap(void)
{
@@ -1650,7 +1650,7 @@ l0_%=: r0 = 0; \
SEC("socket")
__description("bounds deduction cross sign boundary, two overlaps")
__failure __flag(BPF_F_TEST_REG_INVARIANTS)
-__msg("3: (2d) if r0 > r1 {{.*}} R0_w=scalar(smin=smin32=-128,smax=smax32=127,umax=0xffffffffffffff80)")
+__msg("3: (2d) if r0 > r1 {{.*}} R0=scalar(smin=smin32=-128,smax=smax32=127,umax=0xffffffffffffff80)")
__msg("frame pointer is read only")
__naked void bounds_deduct_two_overlaps(void)
{
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_global_ptr_args.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_global_ptr_args.c
index 181da86ba5f0..6630a92b1b47 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_global_ptr_args.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_global_ptr_args.c
@@ -215,7 +215,7 @@ __weak int subprog_untrusted(const volatile struct task_struct *restrict task __
SEC("tp_btf/sys_enter")
__success
__log_level(2)
-__msg("r1 = {{.*}}; {{.*}}R1_w=trusted_ptr_task_struct()")
+__msg("r1 = {{.*}}; {{.*}}R1=trusted_ptr_task_struct()")
__msg("Func#1 ('subprog_untrusted') is global and assumed valid.")
__msg("Validating subprog_untrusted() func#1...")
__msg(": R1=untrusted_ptr_task_struct")
@@ -278,7 +278,7 @@ __weak int subprog_enum_untrusted(enum bpf_attach_type *p __arg_untrusted)
SEC("tp_btf/sys_enter")
__success
__log_level(2)
-__msg("r1 = {{.*}}; {{.*}}R1_w=trusted_ptr_task_struct()")
+__msg("r1 = {{.*}}; {{.*}}R1=trusted_ptr_task_struct()")
__msg("Func#1 ('subprog_void_untrusted') is global and assumed valid.")
__msg("Validating subprog_void_untrusted() func#1...")
__msg(": R1=rdonly_untrusted_mem(sz=0)")
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_ldsx.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_ldsx.c
index 52edee41caf6..f087ffb79f20 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_ldsx.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_ldsx.c
@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ __naked void ldsx_s32(void)
SEC("socket")
__description("LDSX, S8 range checking, privileged")
__log_level(2) __success __retval(1)
-__msg("R1_w=scalar(smin=smin32=-128,smax=smax32=127)")
+__msg("R1=scalar(smin=smin32=-128,smax=smax32=127)")
__naked void ldsx_s8_range_priv(void)
{
asm volatile (
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_precision.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_precision.c
index 73fee2aec698..1fe090cd6744 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_precision.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_precision.c
@@ -144,21 +144,21 @@ SEC("?raw_tp")
__success __log_level(2)
/*
* Without the bug fix there will be no history between "last_idx 3 first_idx 3"
- * and "parent state regs=" lines. "R0_w=6" parts are here to help anchor
+ * and "parent state regs=" lines. "R0=6" parts are here to help anchor
* expected log messages to the one specific mark_chain_precision operation.
*
* This is quite fragile: if verifier checkpointing heuristic changes, this
* might need adjusting.
*/
-__msg("2: (07) r0 += 1 ; R0_w=6")
+__msg("2: (07) r0 += 1 ; R0=6")
__msg("3: (35) if r0 >= 0xa goto pc+1")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 3 first_idx 3 subseq_idx -1")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 2: (07) r0 += 1")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 1: (07) r0 += 1")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 4: (05) goto pc-4")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 3: (35) if r0 >= 0xa goto pc+1")
-__msg("mark_precise: frame0: parent state regs= stack=: R0_rw=P4")
-__msg("3: R0_w=6")
+__msg("mark_precise: frame0: parent state regs= stack=: R0=P4")
+__msg("3: R0=6")
__naked int state_loop_first_last_equal(void)
{
asm volatile (
@@ -233,8 +233,8 @@ __naked void bpf_cond_op_not_r10(void)
SEC("lsm.s/socket_connect")
__success __log_level(2)
-__msg("0: (b7) r0 = 1 ; R0_w=1")
-__msg("1: (84) w0 = -w0 ; R0_w=0xffffffff")
+__msg("0: (b7) r0 = 1 ; R0=1")
+__msg("1: (84) w0 = -w0 ; R0=0xffffffff")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 2 first_idx 0 subseq_idx -1")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 1: (84) w0 = -w0")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 0: (b7) r0 = 1")
@@ -268,8 +268,8 @@ __naked int bpf_neg_3(void)
SEC("lsm.s/socket_connect")
__success __log_level(2)
-__msg("0: (b7) r0 = 1 ; R0_w=1")
-__msg("1: (87) r0 = -r0 ; R0_w=-1")
+__msg("0: (b7) r0 = 1 ; R0=1")
+__msg("1: (87) r0 = -r0 ; R0=-1")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 2 first_idx 0 subseq_idx -1")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 1: (87) r0 = -r0")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 0: (b7) r0 = 1")
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_scalar_ids.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_scalar_ids.c
index dba3ca728f6e..c0ce690ddb68 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_scalar_ids.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_scalar_ids.c
@@ -353,7 +353,7 @@ __flag(BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ)
* collect_linked_regs() can't tie more than 6 registers for a single insn.
*/
__msg("8: (25) if r0 > 0x7 goto pc+0 ; R0=scalar(id=1")
-__msg("9: (bf) r6 = r6 ; R6_w=scalar(id=2")
+__msg("9: (bf) r6 = r6 ; R6=scalar(id=2")
/* check that r{0-5} are marked precise after 'if' */
__msg("frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 8: (25) if r0 > 0x7 goto pc+0")
__msg("frame0: parent state regs=r0,r1,r2,r3,r4,r5 stack=:")
@@ -779,12 +779,12 @@ __success
__retval(0)
/* Check that verifier believes r1/r0 are zero at exit */
__log_level(2)
-__msg("4: (77) r1 >>= 32 ; R1_w=0")
-__msg("5: (bf) r0 = r1 ; R0_w=0 R1_w=0")
+__msg("4: (77) r1 >>= 32 ; R1=0")
+__msg("5: (bf) r0 = r1 ; R0=0 R1=0")
__msg("6: (95) exit")
__msg("from 3 to 4")
-__msg("4: (77) r1 >>= 32 ; R1_w=0")
-__msg("5: (bf) r0 = r1 ; R0_w=0 R1_w=0")
+__msg("4: (77) r1 >>= 32 ; R1=0")
+__msg("5: (bf) r0 = r1 ; R0=0 R1=0")
__msg("6: (95) exit")
/* Verify that statements to randomize upper half of r1 had not been
* generated.
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_spill_fill.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_spill_fill.c
index 1e5a511e8494..7a13dbd794b2 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_spill_fill.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_spill_fill.c
@@ -506,17 +506,17 @@ SEC("raw_tp")
__log_level(2)
__success
/* fp-8 is spilled IMPRECISE value zero (represented by a zero value fake reg) */
-__msg("2: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 0 ; R10=fp0 fp-8_w=0")
+__msg("2: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 0 ; R10=fp0 fp-8=0")
/* but fp-16 is spilled IMPRECISE zero const reg */
-__msg("4: (7b) *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = r0 ; R0_w=0 R10=fp0 fp-16_w=0")
+__msg("4: (7b) *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = r0 ; R0=0 R10=fp0 fp-16=0")
/* validate that assigning R2 from STACK_SPILL with zero value doesn't mark register
* precise immediately; if necessary, it will be marked precise later
*/
-__msg("6: (71) r2 = *(u8 *)(r10 -1) ; R2_w=0 R10=fp0 fp-8_w=0")
+__msg("6: (71) r2 = *(u8 *)(r10 -1) ; R2=0 R10=fp0 fp-8=0")
/* similarly, when R2 is assigned from spilled register, it is initially
* imprecise, but will be marked precise later once it is used in precise context
*/
-__msg("10: (71) r2 = *(u8 *)(r10 -9) ; R2_w=0 R10=fp0 fp-16_w=0")
+__msg("10: (71) r2 = *(u8 *)(r10 -9) ; R2=0 R10=fp0 fp-16=0")
__msg("11: (0f) r1 += r2")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 11 first_idx 0 subseq_idx -1")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r2 stack= before 10: (71) r2 = *(u8 *)(r10 -9)")
@@ -598,7 +598,7 @@ __log_level(2)
__success
/* fp-4 is STACK_ZERO */
__msg("2: (62) *(u32 *)(r10 -4) = 0 ; R10=fp0 fp-8=0000????")
-__msg("4: (71) r2 = *(u8 *)(r10 -1) ; R2_w=0 R10=fp0 fp-8=0000????")
+__msg("4: (71) r2 = *(u8 *)(r10 -1) ; R2=0 R10=fp0 fp-8=0000????")
__msg("5: (0f) r1 += r2")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 5 first_idx 0 subseq_idx -1")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r2 stack= before 4: (71) r2 = *(u8 *)(r10 -1)")
@@ -640,25 +640,25 @@ SEC("raw_tp")
__log_level(2) __flag(BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ)
__success
/* make sure fp-8 is IMPRECISE fake register spill */
-__msg("3: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 1 ; R10=fp0 fp-8_w=1")
+__msg("3: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 1 ; R10=fp0 fp-8=1")
/* and fp-16 is spilled IMPRECISE const reg */
-__msg("5: (7b) *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = r0 ; R0_w=1 R10=fp0 fp-16_w=1")
+__msg("5: (7b) *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = r0 ; R0=1 R10=fp0 fp-16=1")
/* validate load from fp-8, which was initialized using BPF_ST_MEM */
-__msg("8: (79) r2 = *(u64 *)(r10 -8) ; R2_w=1 R10=fp0 fp-8=1")
+__msg("8: (79) r2 = *(u64 *)(r10 -8) ; R2=1 R10=fp0 fp-8=1")
__msg("9: (0f) r1 += r2")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 9 first_idx 7 subseq_idx -1")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r2 stack= before 8: (79) r2 = *(u64 *)(r10 -8)")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs= stack=-8 before 7: (bf) r1 = r6")
/* note, fp-8 is precise, fp-16 is not yet precise, we'll get there */
-__msg("mark_precise: frame0: parent state regs= stack=-8: R0_w=1 R1=ctx() R6_r=map_value(map=.data.two_byte_,ks=4,vs=2) R10=fp0 fp-8_rw=P1 fp-16_w=1")
+__msg("mark_precise: frame0: parent state regs= stack=-8: R0=1 R1=ctx() R6=map_value(map=.data.two_byte_,ks=4,vs=2) R10=fp0 fp-8=P1 fp-16=1")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 6 first_idx 3 subseq_idx 7")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs= stack=-8 before 6: (05) goto pc+0")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs= stack=-8 before 5: (7b) *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = r0")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs= stack=-8 before 4: (b7) r0 = 1")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs= stack=-8 before 3: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 1")
-__msg("10: R1_w=map_value(map=.data.two_byte_,ks=4,vs=2,off=1) R2_w=1")
+__msg("10: R1=map_value(map=.data.two_byte_,ks=4,vs=2,off=1) R2=1")
/* validate load from fp-16, which was initialized using BPF_STX_MEM */
-__msg("12: (79) r2 = *(u64 *)(r10 -16) ; R2_w=1 R10=fp0 fp-16=1")
+__msg("12: (79) r2 = *(u64 *)(r10 -16) ; R2=1 R10=fp0 fp-16=1")
__msg("13: (0f) r1 += r2")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 13 first_idx 7 subseq_idx -1")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r2 stack= before 12: (79) r2 = *(u64 *)(r10 -16)")
@@ -668,12 +668,12 @@ __msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs= stack=-16 before 9: (0f) r1 += r2")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs= stack=-16 before 8: (79) r2 = *(u64 *)(r10 -8)")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs= stack=-16 before 7: (bf) r1 = r6")
/* now both fp-8 and fp-16 are precise, very good */
-__msg("mark_precise: frame0: parent state regs= stack=-16: R0_w=1 R1=ctx() R6_r=map_value(map=.data.two_byte_,ks=4,vs=2) R10=fp0 fp-8_rw=P1 fp-16_rw=P1")
+__msg("mark_precise: frame0: parent state regs= stack=-16: R0=1 R1=ctx() R6=map_value(map=.data.two_byte_,ks=4,vs=2) R10=fp0 fp-8=P1 fp-16=P1")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 6 first_idx 3 subseq_idx 7")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs= stack=-16 before 6: (05) goto pc+0")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs= stack=-16 before 5: (7b) *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = r0")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 4: (b7) r0 = 1")
-__msg("14: R1_w=map_value(map=.data.two_byte_,ks=4,vs=2,off=1) R2_w=1")
+__msg("14: R1=map_value(map=.data.two_byte_,ks=4,vs=2,off=1) R2=1")
__naked void stack_load_preserves_const_precision(void)
{
asm volatile (
@@ -719,22 +719,22 @@ __success
/* make sure fp-8 is 32-bit FAKE subregister spill */
__msg("3: (62) *(u32 *)(r10 -8) = 1 ; R10=fp0 fp-8=????1")
/* but fp-16 is spilled IMPRECISE zero const reg */
-__msg("5: (63) *(u32 *)(r10 -16) = r0 ; R0_w=1 R10=fp0 fp-16=????1")
+__msg("5: (63) *(u32 *)(r10 -16) = r0 ; R0=1 R10=fp0 fp-16=????1")
/* validate load from fp-8, which was initialized using BPF_ST_MEM */
-__msg("8: (61) r2 = *(u32 *)(r10 -8) ; R2_w=1 R10=fp0 fp-8=????1")
+__msg("8: (61) r2 = *(u32 *)(r10 -8) ; R2=1 R10=fp0 fp-8=????1")
__msg("9: (0f) r1 += r2")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 9 first_idx 7 subseq_idx -1")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r2 stack= before 8: (61) r2 = *(u32 *)(r10 -8)")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs= stack=-8 before 7: (bf) r1 = r6")
-__msg("mark_precise: frame0: parent state regs= stack=-8: R0_w=1 R1=ctx() R6_r=map_value(map=.data.two_byte_,ks=4,vs=2) R10=fp0 fp-8_r=????P1 fp-16=????1")
+__msg("mark_precise: frame0: parent state regs= stack=-8: R0=1 R1=ctx() R6=map_value(map=.data.two_byte_,ks=4,vs=2) R10=fp0 fp-8=????P1 fp-16=????1")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 6 first_idx 3 subseq_idx 7")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs= stack=-8 before 6: (05) goto pc+0")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs= stack=-8 before 5: (63) *(u32 *)(r10 -16) = r0")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs= stack=-8 before 4: (b7) r0 = 1")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs= stack=-8 before 3: (62) *(u32 *)(r10 -8) = 1")
-__msg("10: R1_w=map_value(map=.data.two_byte_,ks=4,vs=2,off=1) R2_w=1")
+__msg("10: R1=map_value(map=.data.two_byte_,ks=4,vs=2,off=1) R2=1")
/* validate load from fp-16, which was initialized using BPF_STX_MEM */
-__msg("12: (61) r2 = *(u32 *)(r10 -16) ; R2_w=1 R10=fp0 fp-16=????1")
+__msg("12: (61) r2 = *(u32 *)(r10 -16) ; R2=1 R10=fp0 fp-16=????1")
__msg("13: (0f) r1 += r2")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 13 first_idx 7 subseq_idx -1")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r2 stack= before 12: (61) r2 = *(u32 *)(r10 -16)")
@@ -743,12 +743,12 @@ __msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs= stack=-16 before 10: (73) *(u8 *)(r1 +0) = r2
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs= stack=-16 before 9: (0f) r1 += r2")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs= stack=-16 before 8: (61) r2 = *(u32 *)(r10 -8)")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs= stack=-16 before 7: (bf) r1 = r6")
-__msg("mark_precise: frame0: parent state regs= stack=-16: R0_w=1 R1=ctx() R6_r=map_value(map=.data.two_byte_,ks=4,vs=2) R10=fp0 fp-8_r=????P1 fp-16_r=????P1")
+__msg("mark_precise: frame0: parent state regs= stack=-16: R0=1 R1=ctx() R6=map_value(map=.data.two_byte_,ks=4,vs=2) R10=fp0 fp-8=????P1 fp-16=????P1")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 6 first_idx 3 subseq_idx 7")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs= stack=-16 before 6: (05) goto pc+0")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs= stack=-16 before 5: (63) *(u32 *)(r10 -16) = r0")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 4: (b7) r0 = 1")
-__msg("14: R1_w=map_value(map=.data.two_byte_,ks=4,vs=2,off=1) R2_w=1")
+__msg("14: R1=map_value(map=.data.two_byte_,ks=4,vs=2,off=1) R2=1")
__naked void stack_load_preserves_const_precision_subreg(void)
{
asm volatile (
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_subprog_precision.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_subprog_precision.c
index 9d415f7ce599..ac3e418c2a96 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_subprog_precision.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_subprog_precision.c
@@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ __msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 4: (27) r0 *= 4")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 3: (57) r0 &= 3")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 10: (95) exit")
__msg("mark_precise: frame1: regs=r0 stack= before 9: (bf) r0 = (s8)r10")
-__msg("7: R0_w=scalar")
+__msg("7: R0=scalar")
__naked int fp_precise_subprog_result(void)
{
asm volatile (
@@ -141,7 +141,7 @@ __msg("mark_precise: frame1: regs=r0 stack= before 10: (bf) r0 = (s8)r1")
* anyways, at which point we'll break precision chain
*/
__msg("mark_precise: frame1: regs=r1 stack= before 9: (bf) r1 = r10")
-__msg("7: R0_w=scalar")
+__msg("7: R0=scalar")
__naked int sneaky_fp_precise_subprog_result(void)
{
asm volatile (
@@ -681,7 +681,7 @@ __msg("mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 10 first_idx 7 subseq_idx -1")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r7 stack= before 9: (bf) r1 = r8")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r7 stack= before 8: (27) r7 *= 4")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r7 stack= before 7: (79) r7 = *(u64 *)(r10 -8)")
-__msg("mark_precise: frame0: parent state regs= stack=-8: R0_w=2 R6_w=1 R8_rw=map_value(map=.data.vals,ks=4,vs=16) R10=fp0 fp-8_rw=P1")
+__msg("mark_precise: frame0: parent state regs= stack=-8: R0=2 R6=1 R8=map_value(map=.data.vals,ks=4,vs=16) R10=fp0 fp-8=P1")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 18 first_idx 0 subseq_idx 7")
__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs= stack=-8 before 18: (95) exit")
__msg("mark_precise: frame1: regs= stack= before 17: (0f) r0 += r2")
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bpf_st_mem.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bpf_st_mem.c
index b616575c3b00..ce13002c7a19 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bpf_st_mem.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bpf_st_mem.c
@@ -93,7 +93,7 @@
.expected_attach_type = BPF_SK_LOOKUP,
.result = VERBOSE_ACCEPT,
.runs = -1,
- .errstr = "0: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = -44 ; R10=fp0 fp-8_w=-44\
+ .errstr = "0: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = -44 ; R10=fp0 fp-8=-44\
2: (c5) if r0 s< 0x0 goto pc+2\
- R0_w=-44",
+ R0=-44",
},
--
2.47.3
