Re: [PATCH bpf-next 01/11] bpf: Move insn if/else into do_check_insn()
From: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Date: 2025-03-14 22:47:06
Also in:
bpf, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kselftest, lkml
On Thu, 2025-03-13 at 18:21 +0100, Luis Gerhorst wrote:
This is required to catch the errors later and fall back to a nospec if on a speculative path. Move code into do_check_insn(), replace * "continue" with "return INSN_IDX_MODIFIED" * "goto process_bpf_exit" with "return PROCESS_BPF_EXIT" * "do_print_state = " with "*do_print_state = " Signed-off-by: Luis Gerhorst <redacted> Acked-by: Henriette Herzog <redacted> Cc: Maximilian Ott <redacted> Cc: Milan Stephan <redacted> ---
This refactoring is a long overdue, thank you! A few nits below. [...]
+ err = do_check_insn(env, insn, pop_log, &do_print_state, regs, state, + &prev_insn_idx);
- `regs` remains declared in do_check(), while nothing prevents pushing its declaration to do_check_insn(). - `state` is `env->cur_state`, so I'd avoid passing it as a parameter (just to reduce count); - `prev_insn_idx` is unused by `do_check_insn`; - `pop_log` is not used by `do_check_insn`; - given that `insn` is presumed to correspond to `env->insn_idx` in many places down the stack not sure about this parameter.
+ if (err < 0) {
+ return err;
+ } else if (err == INSN_IDX_MODIFIED) {
Also, I'd get rid of `INSN_IDX_MODIFIED` and move `env->insn_idx++`
into `do_check_insn()`. This would save a few mental cycles when
looking at the code with full patch-set applied:
} else if (err == INSN_IDX_MODIFIED) {
continue;
} else if (err == PROCESS_BPF_EXIT) {
goto process_bpf_exit;
}
WARN_ON_ONCE(err);
if (state->speculative && cur_aux(env)->nospec_result) {
... bunch of actions ...
}
env->insn_idx++;
One needs to stop for a moment and think why "bunch of actions" is
performed for regular index increment, but not for INSN_IDX_MODIFIED.
+ continue;
+ } else if (err == PROCESS_BPF_EXIT) {[...]