Re: [DTrace-devel] [PATCH 3/3] cg: fix masking of lower 32 bits

Eugene Loh <[email protected]>
Newsgroups dev.linux.lists.dtrace
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On 9/23/25 17:05, Kris Van Hees via DTrace-devel wrote:

> The "and %r0, 0xffffffff' instruction does not actually mask off the
> lower 32 bits as one would expect because 0xffffffff is interpreted as
> -1 and then sign-extedned to a 64-bit value, i.e. keeping all bits.

s/extedned/extended/

> The "mov32 %r0, %r0" instruxtion does correctly mask off the lwoer 32

s/instruxtion/instruction/
s/lwoer/lower/

I started looking at this a while back and was not convinced that the 
lower 32 bits were what we want.  Do we want them, and do we have a test 
that confirms?  Or do we want the upper 32 bits?  I got distracted and 
mothballed the whole thing, but the test involved spawning a child 
thread and then looking at its ustack()...  maybe after the child had 
exited but before the parent did.  Admittedly, I was confused at the 
time, and I'm even worse now.

> bits because it forced the value in %r0 to be a 32-bit value.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kris Van Hees <[email protected]>
> ---
>   include/bpf_asm.h | 11 +++++++++++
>   libdtrace/dt_cg.c |  3 ++-
>   2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/bpf_asm.h b/include/bpf_asm.h
> index 152d2312..63987e01 100644
> --- a/include/bpf_asm.h
> +++ b/include/bpf_asm.h
> @@ -36,6 +36,15 @@
>   		.imm = 0						\
>   	})
>   
> +#define BPF_ALU32_REG(op, dst, src)					\
> +	((struct bpf_insn) {						\
> +		.code = BPF_ALU | (op) | BPF_X,				\
> +		.dst_reg = (dst),					\
> +		.src_reg = (src),					\
> +		.off = 0,						\
> +		.imm = 0						\
> +	})
> +
>   #define BPF_END_REG(sz, dst, dir)					\
>   	((struct bpf_insn) {						\
>   		.code = BPF_ALU | BPF_END | (dir),			\
> @@ -68,6 +77,8 @@
>   #define BPF_MOV_REG(dst, src)	BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_MOV, dst, src)
>   #define BPF_MOV_IMM(dst, val)	BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_MOV, dst, val)
>   
> +#define BPF_MOV32_REG(dst, src)	BPF_ALU32_REG(BPF_MOV, dst, src)
> +
>   #define BPF_LOAD(sz, dst, src, ofs)					\
>   	((struct bpf_insn) {						\
>   		.code = BPF_LDX | BPF_MEM | (sz),			\
> diff --git a/libdtrace/dt_cg.c b/libdtrace/dt_cg.c
> index a8f2c9d2..28b7e7c4 100644
> --- a/libdtrace/dt_cg.c
> +++ b/libdtrace/dt_cg.c
> @@ -2757,7 +2757,8 @@ dt_cg_act_stack_sub(dt_pcb_t *pcb, dt_node_t *dnp, int reg, int off, dtrace_actk
>   		dt_regset_xalloc(drp, BPF_REG_0);
>   		emit(dlp,  BPF_CALL_HELPER(BPF_FUNC_get_current_pid_tgid));
>   		dt_regset_free_args(drp);
> -		emit(dlp,  BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_0, 0xffffffff));
> +		/* mov32 %r0, %r0 effectively masks the lower 32 bits. */
> +		emit(dlp,  BPF_MOV32_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0));
>   		emit(dlp,  BPF_STORE(BPF_DW, reg, off, BPF_REG_0));
>   		dt_regset_free(drp, BPF_REG_0);
>   	}
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.