On 02/05/2018 18:24, John Fastabend wrote:
On 05/02/2018 09:59 AM, Jiong Wang wrote:
On 01/05/2018 23:22, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
...
[ 27.784931] ? bpf_int_jit_compile+0x7ac/0xab0
[ 27.785475] bpf_int_jit_compile+0x2b6/0xab0
[ 27.786001] ? do_jit+0x6020/0x6020
[ 27.786428] ? kasan_kmalloc+0xa0/0xd0
[ 27.786885] bpf_check+0x2c05/0x4c40
[ 27.787346] ? fixup_bpf_calls+0x1140/0x1140
[ 27.787865] ? kasan_unpoison_shadow+0x30/0x40
[ 27.788406] ? kasan_kmalloc+0xa0/0xd0
[ 27.788865] ? memset+0x1f/0x40
[ 27.789255] ? bpf_obj_name_cpy+0x2d/0x200
[ 27.789750] bpf_prog_load+0xb07/0xeb0
simply running test_verifier with JIT and kasan on.
Ah, sorry, I should add "sysctl net/core/bpf_jit_enable=1" to my test
script, error reproduced.
convert_ctx_accesses and fixup_bpf_calls might insert ebpf insns that
prog->len would change.
The new fake "exit" subprog whose .start offset is prog->len should be
updated as well.
The "for" condition in adjust_subprog_starts:
for (i = 0; i < env->subprog_cnt; i++) {
need to be changed into:
for (i = 0; i <= env->subprog_cnt; i++) {
Will respin the patch set.
Thanks.
Regards,
Jiong
Also a bit of a nit, but if you are doing a respin. How about
consider renaming BPF_MAX_SUBPROGS -> BPF_MAX_PROGS. It will
make the naming more accurate and also avoid some diffs below
where changing '>=' to '>' is required.
I have been pondering renaming BPF_MAX_SUBPROGS to other name like
what you suggested, but failed to convince myself, mostly due to there
are quite a few other variables etc that are using the "subprog" name
convention, so I am thinking use subprog is also fine as traditional
main prog/func is also a sub prog/func, it is just the entry one.
So I am thinking it might be not worth renaming everything related, and
tend to just keep it as is.
Thanks.
Regards,
Jiong
@@ -191,7 +191,7 @@ struct bpf_verifier_env {
bool seen_direct_write;
struct bpf_insn_aux_data *insn_aux_data; /* array of per-insn state */
struct bpf_verifier_log log;
- u32 subprog_starts[BPF_MAX_SUBPROGS];
+ u32 subprog_starts[BPF_MAX_SUBPROGS + 1];
/* computes the stack depth of each bpf function */
u16 subprog_stack_depth[BPF_MAX_SUBPROGS + 1];
u32 subprog_cnt;
