[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <64e808b8-a1e8-1b64-15a4-179f84c06fa6@huawei.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2021 17:27:39 +0800
From: Hou Tao <houtao1@...wei.com>
To: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>
CC: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
"Daniel Borkmann" <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 2/4] bpf: factor out helpers to check ctx
access for BTF function
Hi Martin,
On 10/23/2021 8:18 AM, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 03:55:09PM +0800, Hou Tao wrote:
>> @@ -1649,6 +1649,33 @@ bool bpf_prog_test_check_kfunc_call(u32 kfunc_id, struct module *owner);
>> bool btf_ctx_access(int off, int size, enum bpf_access_type type,
>> const struct bpf_prog *prog,
>> struct bpf_insn_access_aux *info);
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * The maximum number of BTF function arguments is MAX_BPF_FUNC_ARGS.
>> + * And only aligned read is allowed.
> It is not always 'BTF' function arguments. Lets remove this comment.
> The function is short and its intention is clear.
Yes, you are right, BTF is not necessary for BPF_PROG_TYPE_RAW_TRACEPOINT program.
I will remove the inaccurate comments and update commit message accordingly.
> Others lgtm.
>
> Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>
Thanks for your detailed suggestions and careful review.
Regards,
Tao
Powered by blists - more mailing lists