On Wed, 2024-10-09 at 15:12 +0800, Hou Tao wrote:
[...]
> I don't think they are the same. The main reason is due to the check in
> the beginning of btf_repeat_field():
>
> /* Ensure not repeating fields that should not be repeated. */
> for (i = 0; i < field_cnt; i++) {
> switch (info[i].type) {
>
> There are two cases here:
> 1) info_cnt == 0
> Because info_cnt is 0, the found record isn't saved in info[0], the
> check will be incorrect
>
> 2) nelements ==1 && info_cnt > 0
> If the found record is bpf_timer or similar, btf_repeat_fields() will
> return -EINVAL instead of 0.
Oh, right, there is a loop accessing 'info' at the start.
Sorry for the noise.
