[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5fdb2fa0-7284-5276-c91b-0d4064f768f7@fb.com>
Date: Sat, 9 May 2020 22:07:32 -0700
From: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
CC: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>, <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 02/21] bpf: allow loading of a bpf_iter
program
On 5/9/20 5:41 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Sat, May 09, 2020 at 10:59:00AM -0700, Yonghong Song wrote:
>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>> index 70ad009577f8..d725ff7d11db 100644
>> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>> @@ -7101,6 +7101,10 @@ static int check_return_code(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
>> return 0;
>> range = tnum_const(0);
>> break;
>> + case BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING:
>> + if (env->prog->expected_attach_type != BPF_TRACE_ITER)
>> + return 0;
>> + break;
>
> Not related to this set, but I just noticed that I managed to forget to
> add this check for fentry/fexit/freplace.
> While it's not too late let's enforce return 0 for them ?
> Could you follow up with a patch for bpf tree?
Sure. I can have a followup patch for this.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists