On 01/03/2024 08:05 AM, John Fastabend wrote:
Eduard Zingerman wrote:
On Mon, 2023-12-25 at 17:18 +0800, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
If CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON is not set and bpf_jit_enable is 0, there
exist 6 failed tests.
...
Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index a376eb609c41..1c780a893284 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -19069,7 +19069,7 @@ static int fixup_call_args(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
* have to be rejected, since interpreter doesn't support them yet.
*/
verbose(env, "callbacks are not allowed in non-JITed programs\n");
- return -EINVAL;
+ return -ENOTSUPP;
}
if (!bpf_pseudo_call(insn))
I agree with this change, however I think that it should be consistent.
Quick and non-exhaustive grepping shows that there are 4 places where
"non-JITed" is used in error messages: in check_map_func_compatibility()
and in fixup_call_args().
All these places currently use -EINVAL and should be updated to -ENOTSUPP,
if this change gets a green light.
My preference is to just leave them as is unless its a serious
problem. In this case any userspace has likely already figured
out how to handle these errors so I don't think there is much
value in changing things.
I am not quite sure whether to ignore this patch, but the state of
this patch is "Changes Requested" [1], I guess I should send v2 as
Eduard suggested.
[1]
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20231225091830.6094-1-yangtiezhu@xxxxxxxxxxx/
Thanks,
Tiezhu
