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
| ||
|
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!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists