On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 01:24:28PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 22:09:55 +0100, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> > Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > > On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 19:14:12 +0100, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> > >> When the kptr_restrict sysctl is set, the kernel can fail to return
> > >> jited_ksyms or jited_prog_insns, but still have positive values in
> > >> nr_jited_ksyms and jited_prog_len. This causes bpftool to crash when trying
> > >> to dump the program because it only checks the len fields not the actual
> > >> pointers to the instructions and ksyms.
> > >>
> > >> Fix this by adding the missing checks.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Fixes: 71bb428fe2c1 ("tools: bpf: add bpftool")
> > >
> > > and
> > >
> > > Fixes: f84192ee00b7 ("tools: bpftool: resolve calls without using imm field")
> > >
> > > ?
> >
> > Yeah, guess so? Although I must admit it's not quite clear to me whether
> > bpftool gets stable backports, or if it follows the "only moving
> > forward" credo of libbpf?
>
> bpftool does not have a GH repo, and seeing strength of Alexei's
> arguments in the recent discussion - I don't think it will. So no
> reason for bpftool to be "special"
bpftool always was and will be a special user of libbpf.
