netdev - Re: [PATCH -next] bpf: make btf_check_func_type

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]

Date:   Mon, 3 Feb 2020 16:16:17 +0800
From:   Yao HongBo <yaohongbo@...wei.com>
To:     Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>, <ast@...nel.org>,
        <daniel@...earbox.net>
CC:     <chenzhou10@...wei.com>, <kafai@...com>, <songliubraving@...com>,
        <andriin@...com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] bpf: make btf_check_func_type_match() static



On 2/3/2020 2:20 PM, Yonghong Song wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/2/20 6:02 PM, Hongbo Yao wrote:
>> Fix sparse warning:
>> kernel/bpf/btf.c:4131:5: warning: symbol 'btf_check_func_type_match' was
>> not declared. Should it be static?
> 
> Yes, static is better since the function is only used in one file.
> 
> Please use the tag "[PATCH bpf-next]" instead of "[PATCH -next]".
> Since this is to fix a sparse warning, I think it should be okay
> to target bpf-next. Please resubmit after bpf-next reopens in
> about a week.

OK.

>>
>> Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@...wei.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Hongbo Yao <yaohongbo@...wei.com>
>> ---
>>   kernel/bpf/btf.c | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/btf.c b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
>> index 8c9d8f266bef..83d3d92023af 100644
>> --- a/kernel/bpf/btf.c
>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
>> @@ -4144,7 +4144,7 @@ int btf_distill_func_proto(struct bpf_verifier_log *log,
>>    * EFAULT - verifier bug
>>    * 0 - 99% match. The last 1% is validated by the verifier.
>>    */
>> -int btf_check_func_type_match(struct bpf_verifier_log *log,
>> +static int btf_check_func_type_match(struct bpf_verifier_log *log,
>>                     struct btf *btf1, const struct btf_type *t1,
>>                     struct btf *btf2, const struct btf_type *t2)
> 
> Please also align
>   struct btf *btf1, const struct btf_type *t1,
>   struct btf *btf2, const struct btf_type *t2)
> properly after you added 'static' before the function declaration.

I'll fix it, thanks.

>>   {
>>
> 
> .
>