From 73c864b38383f4abc9b559025cd663f4a81afa89 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Edward Cree Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 16:35:29 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] bpf/verifier: improve disassembly of BPF_NEG instructions BPF_NEG takes only one operand, unlike the bulk of BPF_ALU[64] which are compound-assignments. So give it its own format in print_bpf_insn(). Signed-off-by: Edward Cree Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: David S. Miller --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index e8d7bb8e6b98..4cf9b72c59a0 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -351,6 +351,11 @@ static void print_bpf_insn(const struct bpf_verifier_env *env, verbose("BUG_alu64_%02x\n", insn->code); else print_bpf_end_insn(env, insn); + } else if (BPF_OP(insn->code) == BPF_NEG) { + verbose("(%02x) r%d = %s-r%d\n", + insn->code, insn->dst_reg, + class == BPF_ALU ? "(u32) " : "", + insn->dst_reg); } else if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_X) { verbose("(%02x) %sr%d %s %sr%d\n", insn->code, class == BPF_ALU ? "(u32) " : "", -- 2.30.2