On 26.04.2017 23:04, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 04/26/2017 08:24 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: >> diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c >> index 9a37860a80fc78..dc020d40bb770a 100644 >> --- a/net/core/filter.c >> +++ b/net/core/filter.c >> @@ -1100,7 +1100,7 @@ int bpf_prog_create(struct bpf_prog **pfp, >> struct sock_fprog_kern *fprog) >> if (!bpf_check_basics_ok(fprog->filter, fprog->len)) >> return -EINVAL; >> >> - fp = bpf_prog_alloc(bpf_prog_size(fprog->len), 0); >> + fp = bpf_prog_alloc(bpf_prog_size(fprog->len), 0, false); >> if (!fp) >> return -ENOMEM; >> > > Did you check that transferring allow_ptr_leaks doesn't have a side > effect on the nfp JIT? I believe it can also do cbpf migrations to > a certain extend.
Initially I grepped allow_ptr_leaks usages and didn't see it. I just looked through the code path and didn't see how it could have an impact. Also, cbpf programs shouldn't depend on allow_ptr_leak to the best of my knowledge, no? Thanks, Hannes
