Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 03/13] bpf: track low-32 scalar equality across zero-extending movs

[Eduard Zingerman]

On Mon, 2026-09-21 at 18:59 +0000, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Mon Sep 21, 2026 at 5:28 PM UTC, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> > On Wed, 2026-09-16 at 17:30 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2026 at 5:08 PM Vineet Gupta <vineet.gupta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > It ended up with full testsuite run parity - after 4 incremental patches.
> > > > But the pattern of all those patches was adding some predicate /
> > > > special-casing to reg->add_const
> > > > 
> > > > hunk 1
> > > > 
> > > > -       if (src_reg->add_const)
> > > > +       if (src_reg->add_const && src_reg->delta)
> > > 
> > > why? It should not.
> > > My point is that zero is not special.
> > > It should be handled within the current framework.
> > > All these extra hunks are not correct.
> > > ADD_CONST_32 logic should work for delta == 0 just like
> > > it works for delta == 1.
> > 
> > After thinking about it some more, I agree that having an orthogonal
> > encoding would be nice. However, it appears that the split should be
> > somewhat different:
> > 
> >   struct bpf_reg_state {
> >     ...
> >     s32 delta;
> >     u32 id;
> >     enum id_link_kind { full, zext, sext } link_kind;
> >     ...
> >   }
> > 
> > Where:
> > - id == 0 => no id link
> > - full => all 64-bits of the register are identical to
> >           all 64-bits of a scalar value `id' (let's call it X).
> >           ∀ rA{.id == X, .link == full}, rB{X,full} => rA == rB
> > - zext => lower 32-bits of the register are identical to
> >           lower 32-bits of a scalar value X,
> >           upper 32-bits of the register are null.
> >           ∀ rA{.id == X, .link == ?}, rB{X,zext} => rA % 32 == rB % 32
> > - sext => lower 32-bits of the register are identical to
> >           lower 32-bits of a scalar value X,
> >           upper 32-bits of the register are either 0 or 1,
> >           depending on the bit 31 value.
> >           ∀ rA{.id == X, .link == ?}, rB{X,sext} => sext(rA % 32) == sext(rB % 32)
> 
> hmm.
> there is also 32-bit link with delta, right?

My point is that delta is independent of 32-bit/64-bit property.
`delta' can be used to propagate in both directions:
- full 64 bit -> 32 bit sign/zero-extened
- 32 bit sign/zero-extened -> full 64-bit

> > The reason for such subdivision is that:
> > 
> >   (X + delta) % 32 == X % 32 + delta % 32 == X % 32 + delta iff delta < 2^32
> > 
> > Meaning that a non-zero delta can still be used to infer the state of
> > the lower 32-bits, e.g.:
> > - if  r1 = (X + delta) % 32
> > - and r2 = X
> > - and there is a comparison `if r1 < 42 goto ...`
> > 
> > This comparison adds constraints on lower bits of r1,
> > and it is correct to transfer these constraints to lower bits of r2
> > by subtracting delta from r1 and using lower bits of the result.
> 
> Not sure what you're arguing about.
> My only point is that 32-bit link with delta makes special
> handling of zext unnecessary.
> I still don't hear a strong reason why it needs to be handled
> outside of 32-bit-link-with-delta.

I'm arguing that the following encoding:
- ADD_CONST_32 (delta is valid, sign extend flag invalid)
- ADD_CONST_64 (delta is valid, sign extend flag invalid)
- sign extend flag (delta is invalid)

I strictly worse.