On Tue, 2024-10-08 at 10:21 -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > On Tue, Oct 8, 2024 at 2:49 AM Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2024-10-07 at 20:42 -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > Not sure what Eduard is suggesting here, tbh. But I think if this > > > actually can happen that we have a non-loaded BPF program in one of > > > those struct_ops slots, then let's add a test demonstrating that. > > > > Given the call chain listed in a previous email I think that such > > situation is not possible (modulo obj->gen_loader, which I know > > nothing about). > > > > Thus I suggest to add a pr_warn() and return -EINVAL or something like > > that here. > > > > That's what confused me :) If it's impossible, there is no need to > handle it, we know the FD has to be there. So I'd just not change > anything. Granted I have a memory of a fruit fly, but it took me like half an hour to figure out if it is possible or not, and I wrote a part of that code. At the very least a comment is needed. Also, adding an explicit cast should silence the tool warning. > > > > Worst case of what can happen right now is the kernel rejecting > > > struct_ops loading due to -22 as a program FD. > > > > > > pw-bot: cr > > > > [...] > >
