[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200510004139.tjlll6wqq7zevb73@ast-mbp>
Date: Sat, 9 May 2020 17:41:39 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Yonghong Song <yhs@...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 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?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists