Re: [PATCH bpf-next v13 04/14] bpf: add struct_ops_tab to btf.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 12/15/23 9:43 PM, Kui-Feng Lee wrote:


On 12/15/23 17:19, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
On 12/15/23 1:42 PM, Kui-Feng Lee wrote:


On 12/14/23 18:22, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
On 12/8/23 4:26 PM, thinker.li@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
+const struct bpf_struct_ops_desc *btf_get_struct_ops(struct btf *btf, u32 *ret_cnt)
+{
+    if (!btf)
+        return NULL;
+    if (!btf->struct_ops_tab)

         *ret_cnt = 0;

unless the later patch checks the return value NULL before using *ret_cnt.
Anyway, better to set *ret_cnt to 0 if the btf has no struct_ops.

The same should go for the "!btf" case above but I suspect the above !btf check is unnecessary also and the caller should have checked for !btf itself instead of expecting a list of struct_ops from a NULL btf. Lets continue the review on the later patches for now to confirm where the above !btf case might happen.

Checking callers, I didn't find anything that make btf here NULL so far.

It is safe to remove !btf check. For the same reason as assigning
*ret_cnt for safe, this check should be fine here as well, right?

If for safety, why ref_cnt is not checked for NULL also? The userspace passed-in btf should have been checked for NULL long time before reaching here. There is no need to be over protective here. It would really need a BUG_ON instead if btf was NULL here (don't add a BUG_ON though).

afaict, no function in btf.c is checking the btf argument for NULL also.


I don't have strong opinion here. What I though is to keep the values
as it is without any side-effect if the function call fails and if
possible. And, the callers should not expect the callee to set some
specific values when a call fails.

For *ref_cnt stay uninit, there is a bug in patch 10 which exactly assumes 0 is set in *ret_cnt when there is no struct_ops. It is a good signal on how this function will be used.

I think it is arguable whether returning NULL here is failure. I would argue getting a 0 struct_ops_desc array is not a failure. It is why the !btf case confuses the return NULL case to mean a never would happen error instead of meaning there is no struct_ops. Taking out the !btf case, NULL means there is no struct_ops (instead of failure), so 0 cnt.

Anyhow, either assign 0 to *ret_cnt here, or fix patch 10 to init the local cnt 0 and write a warning comment here in btf_get_struct_ops() saying ret_cnt won't be set when there is no struct_ops in the btf.


I will fix at the patch 10 by setting local cnt 0.


When looking at it again, how about moving the bpf_struct_ops_find_*() to btf.c. Then it will avoid the need of the new btf_get_struct_ops() function. bpf_struct_ops_find_*() can directly use the btf->struct_ops_tab.


I prefer to keep them in bpf_struct_ops.c if it is ok to you.
Fixing the initialization issue of bpf_struct_ops_find()
should be enough.

If choosing between fixing the bug in patch 10 and moving them to btf.c, I would avoid patch 10 (and future) bug to begin with by moving them to btf.c. Moving them should be cheap unless there is other dependency that I have overlooked.





+        return NULL;
+
+    *ret_cnt = btf->struct_ops_tab->cnt;
+    return (const struct bpf_struct_ops_desc *)btf->struct_ops_tab->ops;
+}







[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux