linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 06/12] bpf: selftests: Fix bpf_session

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, 10 Jun 2024 15:04:25 +0200
From: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>
To: Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>
Cc: shuah@...nel.org, ast@...nel.org, andrii@...nel.org, eddyz87@...il.com,
	daniel@...earbox.net, olsajiri@...il.com, quentin@...valent.com,
	alan.maguire@...cle.com, acme@...nel.org, mykolal@...com,
	martin.lau@...ux.dev, song@...nel.org, yonghong.song@...ux.dev,
	john.fastabend@...il.com, kpsingh@...nel.org, sdf@...gle.com,
	haoluo@...gle.com, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-team@...a.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 06/12] bpf: selftests: Fix
 bpf_session_cookie() kfunc prototype

On Sat, Jun 08, 2024 at 03:16:02PM -0600, Daniel Xu wrote:
> The prototype defined in bpf_kfuncs.h was not in line with how the
> actual kfunc was defined. This causes compilation errors when kfunc
> prototypes are generated from BTF.
> 
> Fix by aligning with actual kfunc definition.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>
> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_kfuncs.h                        | 2 +-
>  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/kprobe_multi_session_cookie.c | 2 +-
>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_kfuncs.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_kfuncs.h
> index be91a6919315..3b6675ab4086 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_kfuncs.h
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_kfuncs.h
> @@ -77,5 +77,5 @@ extern int bpf_verify_pkcs7_signature(struct bpf_dynptr *data_ptr,
>  				      struct bpf_key *trusted_keyring) __ksym;
>  
>  extern bool bpf_session_is_return(void) __ksym __weak;
> -extern long *bpf_session_cookie(void) __ksym __weak;
> +extern __u64 *bpf_session_cookie(void) __ksym __weak;

the original intent was to expose long instead of __u64 :-\

could we rather change the bpf_session_cookie function to return long?
should be just return value type change

thanks,
jirka


>  #endif
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/kprobe_multi_session_cookie.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/kprobe_multi_session_cookie.c
> index d49070803e22..0835b5edf685 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/kprobe_multi_session_cookie.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/kprobe_multi_session_cookie.c
> @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ int BPF_PROG(trigger)
>  
>  static int check_cookie(__u64 val, __u64 *result)
>  {
> -	long *cookie;
> +	__u64 *cookie;
>  
>  	if (bpf_get_current_pid_tgid() >> 32 != pid)
>  		return 1;
> -- 
> 2.44.0
>