On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 11:43 PM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
<memxor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> struct bpf_retval_range {
> @@ -434,7 +431,7 @@ struct bpf_verifier_state {
> u32 insn_idx;
> u32 curframe;
>
> - struct bpf_active_lock active_lock;
> + int active_lock;
What about this comment from v3:
> + bool active_lock;
In the next patch it becomes 'int',
so let's make it 'int' right away and move it to bpf_func_state
next to:
int acquired_refs;
struct bpf_reference_state *refs;
?
wouldn't it be cleaner to keep the count of locks in bpf_func_state
next to refs ?
acquire_lock_state() would increment it and release will dec it.
check_resource_leak() will
instead of:
env->cur_state->active_lock
do:
cur_func(env)->active_lock
so behavior is the same, but counting of locks is clean.
Since in this patch it's kinda counting locks across all frames
which is a bit odd.
