[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAP01T76Vsbo-8zO=K4EGNR-iJutqPSVV0trgMVYXbEtV=f_19w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2022 10:00:20 +0200
From: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
netfilter-devel <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo.bianconi@...hat.com>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 bpf-next 1/3] bpf: Tweak definition of KF_TRUSTED_ARGS
On Thu, 22 Sept 2022 at 04:39, Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 9:49 AM Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > + /* These register types have special constraints wrt ref_obj_id
> > + * and offset checks. The rest of trusted args don't.
> > + */
> > + obj_ptr = reg->type == PTR_TO_CTX || reg->type == PTR_TO_BTF_ID ||
> > + reg2btf_ids[base_type(reg->type)];
> > +
>
> ..
>
> > /* Check if argument must be a referenced pointer, args + i has
> > * been verified to be a pointer (after skipping modifiers).
> > + * PTR_TO_CTX is ok without having non-zero ref_obj_id.
> > */
>
> Kumar,
>
> Looking forward to your subsequent patch to split this function.
> It's definitely getting unwieldy.
>
> The comment above is double confusing.
> 1. I think you meant to say "PTR_TO_CTX is ok with zero ref_obj_id",
> right? That double negate is not easy to parse.
>
Yes.
> 2.
> PTR_TO_CTX cannot have ref_obj_id != 0.
> At least I don't think it's possible, but the comment implies
> that such a case may exist.
>
Yes, but we are checking for that later, which is why we skip it for PTR_TO_CTX.
> I applied anyway, since big refactoring is coming shortly, right?
Yes, which is why I tacked it on like this for now. I will be
reposting later this week.
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists