[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0143c2e9-ac0d-33de-3019-85016d771c76@fb.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 06:03:14 +0000
From: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
"bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
"daniel@...earbox.net" <daniel@...earbox.net>
CC: "andrii.nakryiko@...il.com" <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 0/3] fix BTF verification size resolution
On 7/10/19 11:53 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> BTF size resolution logic isn't always resolving type size correctly, leading
> to erroneous map creation failures due to value size mismatch.
>
> This patch set:
> 1. fixes the issue (patch #1);
> 2. adds tests for trickier cases (patch #2);
> 3. and converts few test cases utilizing BTF-defined maps, that previously
> couldn't use typedef'ed arrays due to kernel bug (patch #3).
>
> Patch #1 can be applied against bpf tree, but selftest ones (#2 and #3) have
> to go against bpf-next for now.
Why #2 and #3 have to go to bpf-next? bpf tree also accepts tests,
AFAIK. Maybe leave for Daniel and Alexei to decide in this particular case.
>
> Andrii Nakryiko (3):
> bpf: fix BTF verifier size resolution logic
> selftests/bpf: add trickier size resolution tests
> selftests/bpf: use typedef'ed arrays as map values
Looks good to me. Except minor comments in patch 1/3, Ack the series.
Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
>
> kernel/bpf/btf.c | 14 ++-
> .../bpf/progs/test_get_stack_rawtp.c | 3 +-
> .../bpf/progs/test_stacktrace_build_id.c | 3 +-
> .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_stacktrace_map.c | 2 +-
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_btf.c | 88 +++++++++++++++++++
> 5 files changed, 102 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists