netdev - [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: Make symbol 'bpf_task_storage

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 11 Mar 2021 13:15:05 +0000
From:   'Wei Yongjun <weiyongjun1@...wei.com>
To:     <weiyongjun1@...wei.com>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        "Daniel Borkmann" <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
CC:     <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>, Hulk Robot <hulkci@...wei.com>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: Make symbol 'bpf_task_storage_busy' static

From: Wei Yongjun <weiyongjun1@...wei.com>

The sparse tool complains as follows:

kernel/bpf/bpf_task_storage.c:23:1: warning:
 symbol '__pcpu_scope_bpf_task_storage_busy' was not declared. Should it be static?

This symbol is not used outside of bpf_task_storage.c, so this
commit marks it static.

Fixes: bc235cdb423a ("bpf: Prevent deadlock from recursive bpf_task_storage_[get|delete]")
Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@...wei.com>
Signed-off-by: Wei Yongjun <weiyongjun1@...wei.com>
---
 kernel/bpf/bpf_task_storage.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_task_storage.c b/kernel/bpf/bpf_task_storage.c
index fd3c74ef608e..3ce75758d394 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/bpf_task_storage.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/bpf_task_storage.c
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@
 
 DEFINE_BPF_STORAGE_CACHE(task_cache);
 
-DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, bpf_task_storage_busy);
+static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, bpf_task_storage_busy);
 
 static void bpf_task_storage_lock(void)
 {