linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next] bpf: make btf_check_func_type

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:   Sun, 2 Feb 2020 22:20:31 -0800
From:   Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
To:     Hongbo Yao <yaohongbo@...wei.com>, <ast@...nel.org>,
        <daniel@...earbox.net>
CC:     <chenzhou10@...wei.com>, <kafai@...com>, <songliubraving@...com>,
        <andriin@...com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] bpf: make btf_check_func_type_match() static



On 2/2/20 6:02 PM, Hongbo Yao wrote:
> Fix sparse warning:
> kernel/bpf/btf.c:4131:5: warning: symbol 'btf_check_func_type_match' was
> not declared. Should it be static?

Yes, static is better since the function is only used in one file.

Please use the tag "[PATCH bpf-next]" instead of "[PATCH -next]".
Since this is to fix a sparse warning, I think it should be okay
to target bpf-next. Please resubmit after bpf-next reopens in
about a week.

> 
> Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@...wei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Hongbo Yao <yaohongbo@...wei.com>
> ---
>   kernel/bpf/btf.c | 2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/btf.c b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> index 8c9d8f266bef..83d3d92023af 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> @@ -4144,7 +4144,7 @@ int btf_distill_func_proto(struct bpf_verifier_log *log,
>    * EFAULT - verifier bug
>    * 0 - 99% match. The last 1% is validated by the verifier.
>    */
> -int btf_check_func_type_match(struct bpf_verifier_log *log,
> +static int btf_check_func_type_match(struct bpf_verifier_log *log,
>   			      struct btf *btf1, const struct btf_type *t1,
>   			      struct btf *btf2, const struct btf_type *t2)

Please also align
   struct btf *btf1, const struct btf_type *t1,
   struct btf *btf2, const struct btf_type *t2)
properly after you added 'static' before the function declaration.

>   {
>