[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200510005059.d3zocagerrnsspez@ast-mbp>
Date: Sat, 9 May 2020 17:50:59 -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 12/21] bpf: add PTR_TO_BTF_ID_OR_NULL support
On Sat, May 09, 2020 at 10:59:12AM -0700, Yonghong Song wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/btf.c b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> index a2cfba89a8e1..c490fbde22d4 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> @@ -3790,7 +3790,10 @@ bool btf_ctx_access(int off, int size, enum bpf_access_type type,
> return true;
>
> /* this is a pointer to another type */
> - info->reg_type = PTR_TO_BTF_ID;
> + if (off != 0 && prog->aux->btf_id_or_null_non0_off)
> + info->reg_type = PTR_TO_BTF_ID_OR_NULL;
> + else
> + info->reg_type = PTR_TO_BTF_ID;
I think the verifier should be smarter than this.
It's too specific and inflexible. All ctx fields of bpf_iter execpt first
will be such ? let's figure out a different way to tell verifier about this.
How about using typedef with specific suffix? Like:
typedef struct bpf_map *bpf_map_or_null;
struct bpf_iter__bpf_map {
struct bpf_iter_meta *meta;
bpf_map_or_null map;
};
or use a union with specific second member? Like:
struct bpf_iter__bpf_map {
struct bpf_iter_meta *meta;
union {
struct bpf_map *map;
long null;
};
};
Powered by blists - more mailing lists