netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/2] bpf: clean-up bpf_verifier_vlog() for BPF_LOG

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 2 Nov 2021 11:46:35 +0800
From:   Hou Tao <houtao1@...wei.com>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
CC:     Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        "Andrii Nakryiko" <andrii@...nel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/2] bpf: clean-up bpf_verifier_vlog() for
 BPF_LOG_KERNEL log level

Hi,

On 11/2/2021 6:01 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 10/29/21 3:53 PM, Hou Tao wrote:
>> An extra newline will output for bpf_log() with BPF_LOG_KERNEL level
>> as shown below:
>>
>> [   52.095704] BPF:The function test_3 has 12 arguments. Too many.
>> [   52.095704]
>> [   52.096896] Error in parsing func ptr test_3 in struct bpf_dummy_ops
>>
>>       if (log->level == BPF_LOG_KERNEL) {
>> -        pr_err("BPF:%s\n", log->kbuf);
>> +        bool newline = n > 0 && log->kbuf[n - 1] == '\n';
>> +
>> +        pr_err("BPF:%s%s", log->kbuf, newline ? "" : "\n");
>
> nit: Given you change this anyway, is there a reason not to go with "BPF:
> %s%s" instead?
>
My bad, and will do it in v3.