On 11/27/18 11:02 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 09:17:13PM -0800, Yonghong Song wrote:
>> Commit 2667a2626f4d ("bpf: btf: Add BTF_KIND_FUNC
>> and BTF_KIND_FUNC_PROTO") checked the name validity
>> for BTF_KIND_FUNC/BTF_KIND_FUNC_PROTO types such that:
>> . BTF_KIND_FUNC must have a valid identifier name
>> . BTF_KIND_PROTO must have a null name
>> . The argument name of BTF_KIND_FUNC/BTF_KIND_FUNC_PROTO,
>> if not null, must be a valid identifier.
>>
>> This patch added name checking for the following types:
>> . BTF_KIND_PTR, BTF_KIND_ARRAY, BTF_KIND_VOLATILE,
>> BTF_KIND_CONST, BTF_KIND_RESTRICT:
>> the name must be null
>> . BTF_KIND_STRUCT, BTF_KIND_UNION: the struct/member name
>> is either null or a valid identifier
>> . BTF_KIND_ENUM: the enum type name is either null or a valid
>> identifier; the enumerator name must be a valid identifier.
>> . BTF_KIND_FWD: the name must be a valid identifier
>> . BTF_KIND_TYPEDEF: the name must be a valid identifier
>>
>> For those places a valid name is required, the name must be
>> a valid C identifier. This can be relaxed later if we found
>> use cases for a different (non-C) frontend.
>>
>> Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <ka...@fb.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <y...@fb.com>
> ...
>> return 0;
>> @@ -1409,6 +1432,12 @@ static s32 btf_array_check_meta(struct
>> btf_verifier_env *env,
>> return -EINVAL;
>> }
>>
>> + /* array type should not have a name */
>> + if (t->name_off) {
>> + btf_verifier_log_type(env, t, "Invalid name");
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> if (btf_type_vlen(t)) {
>> btf_verifier_log_type(env, t, "vlen != 0");
>> return -EINVAL;
>> @@ -1585,6 +1614,13 @@ static s32 btf_struct_check_meta(struct
>> btf_verifier_env *env,
>> return -EINVAL;
>> }
>>
>> + /* struct type either no name or a valid one */
>> + if (t->name_off &&
>> + !btf_name_valid_identifier(env->btf, t->name_off)) {
>
> Looks like some of these changes need to go into bpf tree.
> please split it up and let's try to minimize the conflicts between bpf and
> bpf-next
Make sense. Will restructure and resubmit for bpf in the next version.
> Thanks!
>
