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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <f0f31c00-c4a2-1df2-01f7-4e74685ee019@fb.com> Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2022 18:46:34 -0700 From: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com> To: Pu Lehui <pulehui@...wei.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Quentin Monnet <quentin@...valent.com>, Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>, Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 5/5] selftests/bpf: Remove the casting about jited_ksyms and jited_linfo On 7/16/22 5:51 AM, Pu Lehui wrote: > We have unified data extension operation of jited_ksyms and jited_linfo > into zero extension, so there's no need to cast u64 memory address to > long data type. For subject, we are not 'Remove the casting ...'. What the code did is to change the casting. Also, I don't understand the above commit message. What does this mean about 'data extension operation of jited_ksyms and jited_linfo into zero extension'? In prog_tests/btf.c, we have a few other places to cast jited_linfo[...]/jited_ksyms[...] to 'long' type. Maybe casting to 'unsigned long' is a better choice. Casting to 'unsigned long long' of course will work, but is it necessary? Or you are talking about 64bit kernel and 32bit user space? > > Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@...wei.com> > --- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c | 16 +++++++++------- > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c > index e852a9df779d..db10fa1745d1 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c > @@ -6613,8 +6613,9 @@ static int test_get_linfo(const struct prog_info_raw_test *test, > } > > if (CHECK(jited_linfo[0] != jited_ksyms[0], > - "jited_linfo[0]:%lx != jited_ksyms[0]:%lx", > - (long)(jited_linfo[0]), (long)(jited_ksyms[0]))) { > + "jited_linfo[0]:%llx != jited_ksyms[0]:%llx", > + (unsigned long long)(jited_linfo[0]), > + (unsigned long long)(jited_ksyms[0]))) { > err = -1; > goto done; > } > @@ -6632,16 +6633,17 @@ static int test_get_linfo(const struct prog_info_raw_test *test, > } > > if (CHECK(jited_linfo[i] <= jited_linfo[i - 1], > - "jited_linfo[%u]:%lx <= jited_linfo[%u]:%lx", > - i, (long)jited_linfo[i], > - i - 1, (long)(jited_linfo[i - 1]))) { > + "jited_linfo[%u]:%llx <= jited_linfo[%u]:%llx", > + i, (unsigned long long)jited_linfo[i], > + i - 1, (unsigned long long)(jited_linfo[i - 1]))) { > err = -1; > goto done; > } > > if (CHECK(jited_linfo[i] - cur_func_ksyms > cur_func_len, > - "jited_linfo[%u]:%lx - %lx > %u", > - i, (long)jited_linfo[i], (long)cur_func_ksyms, > + "jited_linfo[%u]:%llx - %llx > %u", > + i, (unsigned long long)jited_linfo[i], > + (unsigned long long)cur_func_ksyms, > cur_func_len)) { > err = -1; > goto done;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists