Forum | Documentation | Website | Blog

Skip to content
Snippets Groups Projects
Commit deac5871 authored by Shung-Hsi Yu's avatar Shung-Hsi Yu Committed by Alexei Starovoitov
Browse files

bpf: use check_sub_overflow() to check for subtraction overflows

Similar to previous patch that drops signed_add*_overflows() and uses
(compiler) builtin-based check_add_overflow(), do the same for
signed_sub*_overflows() and replace them with the generic
check_sub_overflow() to make future refactoring easier and have the
checks implemented more efficiently.

Unsigned overflow check for subtraction does not use helpers and are
simple enough already, so they're left untouched.

After the change GCC 13.3.0 generates cleaner assembly on x86_64:

	if (check_sub_overflow(*dst_smin, src_reg->smax_value, dst_smin) ||
   139bf:	mov    0x28(%r12),%rax
   139c4:	mov    %edx,0x54(%r12)
   139c9:	sub    %r11,%rax
   139cc:	mov    %rax,0x28(%r12)
   139d1:	jo     14627 <adjust_reg_min_max_vals+0x1237>
	    check_sub_overflow(*dst_smax, src_reg->smin_value, dst_smax)) {
   139d7:	mov    0x30(%r12),%rax
   139dc:	sub    %r9,%rax
   139df:	mov    %rax,0x30(%r12)
	if (check_sub_overflow(*dst_smin, src_reg->smax_value, dst...
parent 28a44110
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment