[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAADnVQ+P=j0MTkyDD0vYcaqU-qqdE_+mi+gDaqDsLqTXWNPHwA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2024 11:37:51 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Juntong Deng <juntong.deng@...look.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, Eddy Z <eddyz87@...il.com>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>, snorcht@...il.com, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/2] bpf: Make the pointer returned by iter
next method valid
On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 3:45 AM Juntong Deng <juntong.deng@...look.com> wrote:
>
> if (prev_st)
> @@ -12860,6 +12867,16 @@ static int check_kfunc_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn,
> /* For mark_ptr_or_null_reg, see 93c230e3f5bd6 */
> regs[BPF_REG_0].id = ++env->id_gen;
> }
> +
> + if (is_iter_next_kfunc(&meta) && base_type(regs[BPF_REG_0].type) != PTR_TO_MEM) {
The != PTR_TO_MEM part is a bit ugly.
Why not do it in {} scope right above?
Just move it up by a few lines?
Right after regs[BPF_REG_0].type = PTR_TO_BTF_ID;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists