linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/2] bpf, arm64: Support up to 12 function arguments

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]

Message-ID: <5535f49f-8903-4055-b99a-cf8b2d4666e1@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2025 17:09:18 +0800
From: Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@...weicloud.com>
To: Alexis Lothoré <alexis.lothore@...tlin.com>,
 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>, Eduard Zingerman <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>,
 Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@...nel.org>,
 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
 Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@...com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
 Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
 Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
 Florent Revest <revest@...omium.org>
Cc: Bastien Curutchet <bastien.curutchet@...tlin.com>,
 ebpf@...uxfoundation.org, Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
 bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com, Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/2] bpf, arm64: Support up to 12 function
 arguments

On 5/27/2025 4:45 PM, Alexis Lothoré wrote:

[...]

>>> +		/* We can not know for sure about exact alignment needs for
>>> +		 * struct passed on stack, so deny those
>>> +		 */
>>> +		if (m->arg_flags[i] & BTF_FMODEL_STRUCT_ARG)
>>> +			return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> leave the error code as is, namely, return -ENOTSUPP?
> Actually this change follows a complaint from checkpatch:
> 
> "WARNING: ENOTSUPP is not a SUSV4 error code, prefer EOPNOTSUPP"

Seems we can just ignore this warning, as ENOTSUPP is already used
throughout bpf, and the actual value -524 is well recognized.

[...]