netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf v2 0/4] bpf: btf: check name validity for various types

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: <20181129000635.3tov5zqn5gpxtqsi@ast-mbp>
Date:   Wed, 28 Nov 2018 16:06:36 -0800
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
Cc:     ast@...com, daniel@...earbox.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        kafai@...com, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf v2 0/4] bpf: btf: check name validity for various
 types

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 01:23:26PM -0800, Yonghong Song wrote:
> This patch set added name checking for PTR, ARRAY, VOLATILE, TYPEDEF,
> CONST, RESTRICT, STRUCT, UNION, ENUM and FWD types. Such a strict
> name checking makes BTF more sound in the kernel and future
> BTF-to-header-file converesion ([1]) less fragile.
> 
> Patch #1 implemented btf_name_valid_identifier() for name checking
> which will be used in Patch #2.
> Patch #2 checked name validity for the above mentioned types.
> Patch #3 fixed two existing test_btf unit tests exposed by the strict
> name checking.
> Patch #4 added additional test cases.
> 
> This patch set is against bpf tree.
> 
> Patch #1 has been implemented in bpf-next commit
> Commit 2667a2626f4d ("bpf: btf: Add BTF_KIND_FUNC
> and BTF_KIND_FUNC_PROTO"), so there is no need to apply this
> patch to bpf-next. In case this patch is applied to bpf-next,
> there will be a minor conflict like
>   diff --cc kernel/bpf/btf.c
>   index a09b2f94ab25,93c233ab2db6..000000000000
>   --- a/kernel/bpf/btf.c
>   +++ b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
>   @@@ -474,7 -451,7 +474,11 @@@ static bool btf_name_valid_identifier(c
>           return !*src;
>     }
> 
>   ++<<<<<<< HEAD
>    +const char *btf_name_by_offset(const struct btf *btf, u32 offset)
>   ++=======
>   + static const char *btf_name_by_offset(const struct btf *btf, u32 offset)
>   ++>>>>>>> fa9566b0847d... bpf: btf: implement btf_name_valid_identifier()
>     {
>           if (!offset)
>                   return "(anon)";
> Just resolve the conflict by taking the "const char ..." line.
> 
> Patches #2, #3 and #4 can be applied to bpf-next without conflict.
> 
> [1]: http://vger.kernel.org/lpc-bpf2018.html#session-2

Applied to bpf tree. Thanks!