Received: by 2002:a25:4158:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id o85csp6549619yba; Wed, 1 May 2019 14:47:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz7VzPywMsefh3ovKkfY2SdbWmQ6KMdmaqW6QiEFgFkKfo+2cb56kQJLBMaZNtdsOEk3ThV X-Received: by 2002:a63:c702:: with SMTP id n2mr284773pgg.255.1556747263841; Wed, 01 May 2019 14:47:43 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1556747263; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=xQtkSslL0T/18lmpXp7JtKDqU8+AWONXl0fgrAFv/GfFadJ+1DytjV5QXCMwtNcwBp tNM+QdqWndY78ESI9qdd0gMp2iv3G13wjFNqsgnbiw9b5cvJjovrf7P4Zbx8omApNzOj UDtrF7MQQ3QEfTDUV2st+G7wTBRDpFyH/QQ/YBrpx4g1roRKRUg+vidgtgPjzrSL093e aNX9zJTZOe708KqDL+6YKxozJovlOL9DOTSUHj9IrlZyu4hzJ15b0Xlk+KRTMJsqUH7Y c3+7WHyHzQidtLVHFURBAMbAvKzo184TOUHTsIEuj5Gwon0NpSTJdNwWkYywXOWZc8zp s7sQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:content-transfer-encoding :content-language:in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date :message-id:from:references:to:subject; bh=A6jeu3UFeBuKmKHTvZ/fCM8c3K9pEIGK90VbVVEI7Yc=; b=dSURwE7NULaIUMz34Xb+nAVGJ7pVo2VEA2EayZqogiTRWLRUjeQHgerdwwMeda5Aq6 6RUiWRc3Yxh7outZlFGt2yPrUc2AuNyZ9huHHSyUB7zqxH1VGSuIUQkSKeGDfXWRL//x 2wDB71+U5yU7Z1msNvE32gNJObn+RjQNgdiLh1x+sFy8v33yUhq4caa0LkUm5umSedlE PP9vlLGI3MupqKMC+Jc+vFUS0W54fEIby7510AyHRJrmWXTnIQ5hYMGj8nHDmfLV4Uet KI6lAZOnv4bxXHtRdH5QN4jdsnlN/Iig/YwhS5Q/D6z1zUJHXuXCa7uluMAoesgXrhw3 bnjg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 9si9709498pgw.263.2019.05.01.14.47.28; Wed, 01 May 2019 14:47:43 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726353AbfEAVoX (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 1 May 2019 17:44:23 -0400 Received: from www62.your-server.de ([213.133.104.62]:43006 "EHLO www62.your-server.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726196AbfEAVoW (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 May 2019 17:44:22 -0400 Received: from [78.46.172.2] (helo=sslproxy05.your-server.de) by www62.your-server.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89_1) (envelope-from ) id 1hLx1R-0008PH-NM; Wed, 01 May 2019 23:44:13 +0200 Received: from [173.228.226.134] (helo=localhost.localdomain) by sslproxy05.your-server.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hLx1R-000OV8-8R; Wed, 01 May 2019 23:44:13 +0200 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] bpf, x32: Fix bug for BPF_JMP | {BPF_JSGT, BPF_JSLE, BPF_JSLT, BPF_JSGE} To: Wang YanQing , ast@kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, tglx@linutronix.de, netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20190427082826.GA16311@udknight> From: Daniel Borkmann Message-ID: Date: Wed, 1 May 2019 23:44:09 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190427082826.GA16311@udknight> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated-Sender: daniel@iogearbox.net X-Virus-Scanned: Clear (ClamAV 0.100.3/25436/Wed May 1 09:58:19 2019) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 04/27/2019 10:28 AM, Wang YanQing wrote: > The current method to compare 64-bit numbers for conditional jump is: > > 1) Compare the high 32-bit first. > > 2) If the high 32-bit isn't the same, then goto step 4. > > 3) Compare the low 32-bit. > > 4) Check the desired condition. > > This method is right for unsigned comparison, but it is buggy for signed > comparison, because it does signed comparison for low 32-bit too. > > There is only one sign bit in 64-bit number, that is the MSB in the 64-bit > number, it is wrong to treat low 32-bit as signed number and do the signed > comparison for it. > > This patch fixes the bug and adds a testcase in selftests/bpf for such bug. > > Signed-off-by: Wang YanQing Applied, thanks!