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;
From:   Yauheni Kaliuta <yauheni.kaliuta@redhat.com>
To:     Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@netronome.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
        Jiri Benc <jbenc@redhat.com>, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ebpf: BPF_ALU32 | BPF_ARSH on BE arches
References: <xunyo92mox9h.fsf@redhat.com> <87ef3i9dbc.fsf@netronome.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Jun 2019 13:41:34 +0300
In-Reply-To: <87ef3i9dbc.fsf@netronome.com> (Jiong Wang's message of "Tue, 25
        Jun 2019 11:20:07 +0100")
Message-ID: <xuny7e9aoskh.fsf@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi, Jiong!

>>>>> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 11:20:07 +0100, Jiong Wang  wrote:

 > Yauheni Kaliuta writes:

 >> Hi!
 >> 
 >> Looks like the code:
 >> 
 >> ALU_ARSH_X:
 >> DST = (u64) (u32) ((*(s32 *) &DST) >> SRC);
 >> CONT;
 >> ALU_ARSH_K:
 >> DST = (u64) (u32) ((*(s32 *) &DST) >> IMM);
 >> CONT;
 >> 
 >> works incorrectly on BE arches since it must operate on lower
 >> parts of 64bit registers.
 >> 
 >> See failure of test_verifier test 'arsh32 on imm 2' (#23 on
 >> 5.2-rc6).

 > Ah, thanks for reporting this.

 > Should not taken the address directly, does the following fix resolved the
 > failure?

 >         ALU_ARSH_X:
 >                 DST = (u64) (u32) ((s32) DST) >> SRC);
 >                 CONT;
 >         ALU_ARSH_K:
 >                 DST = (u64) (u32) ((s32) DST) >> IMM);
 >                 CONT;

Yes, thanks (just add the missing braces).

-- 
WBR,
Yauheni Kaliuta