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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <DA6TTA76AU5Z.32W0O8EORBCQC@bootlin.com>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2025 11:13:21 +0200
From: Alexis Lothoré <alexis.lothore@...tlin.com>
To: "Xu Kuohai" <xukuohai@...weicloud.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 Tue May 27, 2025 at 11:09 AM CEST, Xu Kuohai wrote:
> 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.

Ok, then I'll switch it back to ENOTSUPP


-- 
Alexis Lothoré, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com