linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 2/3] bpf: btf: Add BTF_KFUNCS

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: Mon, 8 Jan 2024 10:14:13 +0100
From: Lorenz Bauer <lorenz.bauer@...valent.com>
To: Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>
Cc: andrii@...nel.org, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, 
	martin.lau@...ux.dev, alexei.starovoitov@...il.com, olsajiri@...il.com, 
	quentin@...valent.com, alan.maguire@...cle.com, memxor@...il.com, 
	song@...nel.org, yonghong.song@...ux.dev, john.fastabend@...il.com, 
	kpsingh@...nel.org, sdf@...gle.com, haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org, 
	bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 2/3] bpf: btf: Add BTF_KFUNCS_START/END macro pair

On Sat, Jan 6, 2024 at 7:25 PM Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz> wrote:
>
> This macro pair is functionally equivalent to BTF_SET8_START/END, except
> with BTF_SET8_KFUNCS flag set in the btf_id_set8 flags field. The next
> commit will codemod all kfunc set8s to this new variant such that all
> kfuncs are tagged as such in .BTF_ids section.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>
> ---
>  include/linux/btf_ids.h | 11 +++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/btf_ids.h b/include/linux/btf_ids.h
> index dca09b7f21dc..0fe4f1cd1918 100644
> --- a/include/linux/btf_ids.h
> +++ b/include/linux/btf_ids.h
> @@ -8,6 +8,9 @@ struct btf_id_set {
>         u32 ids[];
>  };
>
> +/* This flag implies BTF_SET8 holds kfunc(s) */
> +#define BTF_SET8_KFUNCS                (1 << 0)

Nit: could this be an enum so that the flag is discoverable via BTF?
Also, isn't this UAPI if pahole interprets this flag?