On 9/8/24 12:19 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 11:40:06AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 11:37 AM Priya Bala Govindasamy <pgovind2@xxxxxxx> wrote:
SEC("kprobe/__pcpu_freelist_pop+0x58c")
We should disallow such recursion in the verifier.
All these "bugs" are hard to prioritize as bugs.
When people shot themselves in the foot there will be pain.
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/percpu_freelist.c b/kernel/bpf/percpu_freelist.c
index 034cf87b54e9..14c9fcf81ac6 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/percpu_freelist.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/percpu_freelist.c
@@ -187,6 +187,7 @@ struct pcpu_freelist_node *__pcpu_freelist_pop(struct pcpu_freelist *s)
return ___pcpu_freelist_pop_nmi(s);
return ___pcpu_freelist_pop(s);
}
+NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(__pcpu_freelist_pop);
Maybe add a 'notrace' attribute to the function?
struct pcpu_freelist_node *pcpu_freelist_pop(struct pcpu_freelist *s)
{
