netdev - Re: [Linux-kernel] [PATCH] net: bpf: add static in net/core/filter.c

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]

Date:   Wed, 16 Oct 2019 14:24:39 +0100
From:   Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@...ethink.co.uk>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...ts.codethink.co.uk,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Linux-kernel] [PATCH] net: bpf: add static in net/core/filter.c

On 16/10/2019 14:11, Ben Dooks wrote:
> On 16/10/2019 14:10, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 02:02:31PM +0100, Ben Dooks wrote:
>>> On 16/10/2019 13:26, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 12:04:46PM +0100, Ben Dooks (Codethink) wrote:
>>>>> There are a number of structs in net/core/filter.c
>>>>> that are not exported or declared outside of the
>>>>> file. Fix the following warnings by making these
>>>>> all static:
>>>>>
>>>>> net/core/filter.c:8465:31: warning: symbol 'sk_filter_verifier_ops' 
>>>>> was not declared. Should it be static?
>>>>> net/core/filter.c:8472:27: warning: symbol 'sk_filter_prog_ops' was 
>>>>> not declared. Should it be static?
>>>> [...]
>>>>> net/core/filter.c:8935:27: warning: symbol 'sk_reuseport_prog_ops' 
>>>>> was not declared. Should it be static?
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@...ethink.co.uk>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
>>>>> Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
>>>>> Cc: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>
>>>>> Cc: Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
>>>>> Cc: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
>>>>> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
>>>>> Cc: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
>>>>> Cc: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>
>>>>> Cc: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
>>>>> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
>>>>> Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org
>>>>> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
>>>>> ---
>>>>>    net/core/filter.c | 60 
>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------
>>>>>    1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c
>>>>> index ed6563622ce3..f7338fee41f8 100644
>>>>> --- a/net/core/filter.c
>>>>> +++ b/net/core/filter.c
>>>>> @@ -8462,18 +8462,18 @@ static u32 sk_msg_convert_ctx_access(enum 
>>>>> bpf_access_type type,
>>>>>        return insn - insn_buf;
>>>>>    }
>>>>> -const struct bpf_verifier_ops sk_filter_verifier_ops = {
>>>>> +static const struct bpf_verifier_ops sk_filter_verifier_ops = {
>>>>>        .get_func_proto        = sk_filter_func_proto,
>>>>>        .is_valid_access    = sk_filter_is_valid_access,
>>>>>        .convert_ctx_access    = bpf_convert_ctx_access,
>>>>>        .gen_ld_abs        = bpf_gen_ld_abs,
>>>>>    };
>>>>
>>>> Big obvious NAK. I'm puzzled that you try to fix a compile warning, 
>>>> but without
>>>> even bothering to compile the result after your patch ...
>>>
>>> builds fine. maybe some effort to stop this happening again should be 
>>> made.
>>
>> It doesn't build, because they are used/needed outside:
> 
> Hmm, your config it does, I get /none/ of these warnings.
> 
> I guess a lot of this is being built whether or not is then used.

Without CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL, a part of net/core/filter.c is being
built but then not declared or used. Should this be split up or
the areas not being built be removed?

-- 
Ben Dooks				http://www.codethink.co.uk/
Senior Engineer				Codethink - Providing Genius

https://www.codethink.co.uk/privacy.html