netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: Use --no-fail option if CONFIG

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]

Message-ID: <CAEf4BzZJaVkck7y_YH5Cd2rhx6M8T0trKmGz1dRnGCz2+Uh=bQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 22 Sep 2020 13:27:17 -0700
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
        Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: Use --no-fail option if CONFIG_BPF is
 not enabled

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 11:48 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 02:55:27PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 5:30 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Currently all the resolve_btfids 'users' are under CONFIG_BPF
> > > code, so if we have CONFIG_BPF disabled, resolve_btfids will
> > > fail, because there's no data to resolve.
> > >
> > > In case CONFIG_BPF is disabled, using resolve_btfids --no-fail
> > > option, that makes resolve_btfids leave quietly if there's no
> > > data to resolve.
> > >
> > > Fixes: c9a0f3b85e09 ("bpf: Resolve BTF IDs in vmlinux image")
> > > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
> > > ---
> >
> > If no CONFIG_BTF is specified, there is no need to even run
> > resolve_btfids. So why not do just that -- run resolve_btfids only
> > if both CONFIG_BPF and CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF are specified?
>
> we can have CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF without CONFIG_BPF being enabled,
> so we could in theory have in future some BTF ID user outside bpf code,
> but I guess we can enable that, when it actually happens
>

Right. Let's cross that bridge when we get there.

> jirka
>
> >
> >
> > >  scripts/link-vmlinux.sh | 9 +++++++--
> > >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/scripts/link-vmlinux.sh b/scripts/link-vmlinux.sh
> > > index e6e2d9e5ff48..3173b8cf08cb 100755
> > > --- a/scripts/link-vmlinux.sh
> > > +++ b/scripts/link-vmlinux.sh
> > > @@ -342,8 +342,13 @@ vmlinux_link vmlinux "${kallsymso}" ${btf_vmlinux_bin_o}
> > >
> > >  # fill in BTF IDs
> > >  if [ -n "${CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF}" ]; then
> > > -info BTFIDS vmlinux
> > > -${RESOLVE_BTFIDS} vmlinux
> > > +       info BTFIDS vmlinux
> > > +       # Let's be more permissive if CONFIG_BPF is disabled
> > > +       # and do not fail if there's no data to resolve.
> > > +       if [ -z "${CONFIG_BPF}" ]; then
> > > +         no_fail=--no-fail
> > > +       fi
> > > +       ${RESOLVE_BTFIDS} $no_fail vmlinux
> > >  fi
> > >
> > >  if [ -n "${CONFIG_BUILDTIME_TABLE_SORT}" ]; then
> > > --
> > > 2.26.2
> > >
> >
>