On 07/12/2019 08:03 AM, Yonghong Song wrote: > On 7/10/19 11:53 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: >> BTF size resolution logic isn't always resolving type size correctly, leading >> to erroneous map creation failures due to value size mismatch. >> >> This patch set: >> 1. fixes the issue (patch #1); >> 2. adds tests for trickier cases (patch #2); >> 3. and converts few test cases utilizing BTF-defined maps, that previously >> couldn't use typedef'ed arrays due to kernel bug (patch #3). >> >> Patch #1 can be applied against bpf tree, but selftest ones (#2 and #3) have >> to go against bpf-next for now. > > Why #2 and #3 have to go to bpf-next? bpf tree also accepts tests, > AFAIK. Maybe leave for Daniel and Alexei to decide in this particular case. Yes, corresponding test cases for fixes are also accepted for bpf tree, thanks. >> Andrii Nakryiko (3): >> bpf: fix BTF verifier size resolution logic >> selftests/bpf: add trickier size resolution tests >> selftests/bpf: use typedef'ed arrays as map values > > Looks good to me. Except minor comments in patch 1/3, Ack the series. > Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx> > >> >> kernel/bpf/btf.c | 14 ++- >> .../bpf/progs/test_get_stack_rawtp.c | 3 +- >> .../bpf/progs/test_stacktrace_build_id.c | 3 +- >> .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_stacktrace_map.c | 2 +- >> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_btf.c | 88 +++++++++++++++++++ >> 5 files changed, 102 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >>
