From: Edward Cree <ecree@solarflare.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 16:35:29 +0100
Subject: bpf/verifier: improve disassembly of BPF_NEG instructions
Patch-mainline: v4.15-rc1
Git-commit: 73c864b38383f4abc9b559025cd663f4a81afa89
References: bsc#1073928

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 <ecree@solarflare.com>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Acked-by: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@suse.cz>

---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 5 +++++
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 8fb853980feb..ab1c09c955fd 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -344,6 +344,11 @@ 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) " : "",
-- 
2.15.1