netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 06/14] bpf: Use BTF_ID to resolve bpf_ctx

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]

Message-ID: <2de85be7-0910-3129-b881-edbc2854d38e@fb.com>
Date:   Fri, 26 Jun 2020 14:44:39 -0700
From:   Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
To:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
CC:     <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        David Miller <davem@...hat.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Wenbo Zhang <ethercflow@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
        Brendan Gregg <bgregg@...flix.com>,
        Florent Revest <revest@...omium.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 06/14] bpf: Use BTF_ID to resolve
 bpf_ctx_convert struct



On 6/25/20 3:12 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> This way the ID is resolved during compile time,
> and we can remove the runtime name search.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
> ---
>   kernel/bpf/btf.c | 12 ++++++++----
>   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/btf.c b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> index 4da6b0770ff9..701a2cb5dfb2 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
>   #include <linux/sort.h>
>   #include <linux/bpf_verifier.h>
>   #include <linux/btf.h>
> +#include <linux/btf_ids.h>
>   #include <linux/skmsg.h>
>   #include <linux/perf_event.h>
>   #include <net/sock.h>
> @@ -3621,6 +3622,9 @@ static int btf_translate_to_vmlinux(struct bpf_verifier_log *log,
>   	return kern_ctx_type->type;
>   }
>   
> +BTF_ID_LIST(bpf_ctx_convert_btf_id)
> +BTF_ID(struct, bpf_ctx_convert)
> +
>   struct btf *btf_parse_vmlinux(void)
>   {
>   	struct btf_verifier_env *env = NULL;
> @@ -3659,10 +3663,10 @@ struct btf *btf_parse_vmlinux(void)
>   	if (err)
>   		goto errout;
>   
> -	/* find struct bpf_ctx_convert for type checking later */
> -	btf_id = btf_find_by_name_kind(btf, "bpf_ctx_convert", BTF_KIND_STRUCT);
> -	if (btf_id < 0) {
> -		err = btf_id;
> +	/* struct bpf_ctx_convert for type checking later */
> +	btf_id = bpf_ctx_convert_btf_id[0];
> +	if (btf_id <= 0) {

Just want to double check. Is it possible btf_id < 0 since previous 
patch did not check < 0?

> +		err = -EINVAL;
>   		goto errout;
>   	}
>   	/* btf_parse_vmlinux() runs under bpf_verifier_lock */
>