On 9/3/24 6:51 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
On Mon, Sep 2, 2024 at 9:22 AM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 9/1/24 11:30 PM, "Mykyta Yatsenko mykyta.yatsenko5"@gmail.com wrote:
From: Mykyta Yatsenko <yatsenko@xxxxxxxx>
Wrong function is used to access the first enum64 element.
Substituting btf_enum(t) with btf_enum64(t) for BTF_KIND_ENUM64.
Signed-off-by: Mykyta Yatsenko <yatsenko@xxxxxxxx>
---
tools/bpf/bpftool/btf.c | 13 ++++++++++---
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/bpf/bpftool/btf.c b/tools/bpf/bpftool/btf.c
index 6789c7a4d5ca..b0f12c511bb3 100644
--- a/tools/bpf/bpftool/btf.c
+++ b/tools/bpf/bpftool/btf.c
@@ -557,16 +557,23 @@ static const char *btf_type_sort_name(const struct btf *btf, __u32 index, bool f
const struct btf_type *t = btf__type_by_id(btf, index);
switch (btf_kind(t)) {
- case BTF_KIND_ENUM:
- case BTF_KIND_ENUM64: {
+ case BTF_KIND_ENUM: {
int name_off = t->name_off;
/* Use name of the first element for anonymous enums if allowed */
- if (!from_ref && !t->name_off && btf_vlen(t))
+ if (!from_ref && !name_off && btf_vlen(t))
name_off = btf_enum(t)->name_off;
return btf__name_by_offset(btf, name_off);
}
Small nit, could we consolidate the logic into the below? Still somewhat nicer
than duplicating all of the rest.
diff --git a/tools/bpf/bpftool/btf.c b/tools/bpf/bpftool/btf.c
index 6789c7a4d5ca..aae6f5262c6a 100644
--- a/tools/bpf/bpftool/btf.c
+++ b/tools/bpf/bpftool/btf.c
@@ -562,8 +562,10 @@ static const char *btf_type_sort_name(const struct btf *btf, __u32 index, bool f
int name_off = t->name_off;
/* Use name of the first element for anonymous enums if allowed */
- if (!from_ref && !t->name_off && btf_vlen(t))
- name_off = btf_enum(t)->name_off;
+ if (!from_ref && !name_off && btf_vlen(t))
+ name_off = btf_kind(t) == BTF_KIND_ENUM64 ?
Just fyi for the future (I don't think we need to fix this or anything
like that), but using BTF_KIND_xxx constants in btf_kind(t)
comparisons should be rare. Libbpf provides a full set of shorter
btf_is_xxx(t) helpers for this. So this would be just
`btf_is_enum64(t)`. What you did is not wrong, it's just more
open-coded and verbose.
Noted, that would have been better agree.
Thanks,
Daniel
