From a65cfe9a54b051b741d12e62c3cd38f30688c5a4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Can Erkin Acar Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 00:31:51 +0000 Subject: Accept BPF_MUL as a valid instruction in bpf_validate() also improve the comments. Based on diff from Guy Harris --- sys/net/bpf_filter.c | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/sys/net/bpf_filter.c b/sys/net/bpf_filter.c index 20e5e01444a..79cf51f1ded 100644 --- a/sys/net/bpf_filter.c +++ b/sys/net/bpf_filter.c @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -/* $OpenBSD: bpf_filter.c,v 1.19 2007/08/06 08:28:09 tom Exp $ */ +/* $OpenBSD: bpf_filter.c,v 1.20 2008/01/02 00:31:50 canacar Exp $ */ /* $NetBSD: bpf_filter.c,v 1.12 1996/02/13 22:00:00 christos Exp $ */ /* @@ -473,9 +473,8 @@ bpf_filter(pc, p, wirelen, buflen) /* * Return true if the 'fcode' is a valid filter program. * The constraints are that each jump be forward and to a valid - * code. The code must terminate with either an accept or reject. - * 'valid' is an array for use by the routine (it must be at least - * 'len' bytes long). + * code and memory operations use valid addresses. The code + * must terminate with either an accept or reject. * * The kernel needs to be able to verify an application's filter code. * Otherwise, a bogus program could easily crash the system. @@ -531,6 +530,7 @@ bpf_validate(f, len) switch (BPF_OP(p->code)) { case BPF_ADD: case BPF_SUB: + case BPF_MUL: case BPF_OR: case BPF_AND: case BPF_LSH: -- cgit v1.2.3