On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 12:41:28 -0400
Craig Gallek <[email protected]> wrote:
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> index 4f402dcdf372..28b300868ad7 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> @@ -580,7 +580,7 @@ bpf_object__init_kversion(struct bpf_object *obj,
> }
>
> static int
> -bpf_object__validate_maps(struct bpf_object *obj)
> +bpf_object__validate_maps(struct bpf_object *obj, int map_def_sz)
> {
> int i;
>
> @@ -595,9 +595,11 @@ bpf_object__validate_maps(struct bpf_object *obj)
> const struct bpf_map *a = &obj->maps[i - 1];
> const struct bpf_map *b = &obj->maps[i];
>
> - if (b->offset - a->offset < sizeof(struct bpf_map_def)) {
> - pr_warning("corrupted map section in %s: map \"%s\" too
> small\n",
> - obj->path, a->name);
> + if (b->offset - a->offset < map_def_sz) {
> + pr_warning("corrupted map section in %s: map \"%s\" too
> small "
> + "(%zd vs %d)\n",
> + obj->path, a->name, b->offset - a->offset,
> + map_def_sz);
> return -EINVAL;
Hmm... one more comment. You have just coded handling of ELF
map_def_sz which are smaller in a safe manor, but here this case will
get rejected (in bpf_object__validate_maps). That cannot be the right
intend?
--
Best regards,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer
MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
