On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 11:55:23AM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 05:53:58PM +0000, Juntong Deng wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
> > +/**
> > + * bpf_iter_task_file_next() - Get the next file in bpf_iter_task_file
> > + *
> > + * bpf_iter_task_file_next acquires a reference to the struct file.
> > + *
> > + * The reference to struct file acquired by the previous
> > + * bpf_iter_task_file_next() is released in the next bpf_iter_task_file_next(),
> > + * and the last reference is released in the last bpf_iter_task_file_next()
> > + * that returns NULL.
> > + *
> > + * @it: the bpf_iter_task_file to be checked
> > + *
> > + * @returns a pointer to bpf_iter_task_file_item
> > + */
> > +__bpf_kfunc struct bpf_iter_task_file_item *bpf_iter_task_file_next(struct bpf_iter_task_file *it)
> > +{
> > + struct bpf_iter_task_file_kern *kit = (void *)it;
> > + struct bpf_iter_task_file_item *item = &kit->item;
> > +
> > + if (item->file)
> > + fput(item->file);
> > +
>
> missing rcu_read_lock ?
nah user needs to take it explicitly, should have read the whole thing first, sry
jirka
>
> jirka
>
> > + item->file = task_lookup_next_fdget_rcu(item->task, &kit->next_fd);
> > + item->fd = kit->next_fd;
> > +
> > + kit->next_fd++;
> > +
> > + if (!item->file)
> > + return NULL;
> > +
> > + return item;
> > +}
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * bpf_iter_task_file_destroy() - Destroy a bpf_iter_task_file
> > + *
> > + * If the iterator does not iterate to the end, then the last
> > + * struct file reference is released at this time.
> > + *
> > + * @it: the bpf_iter_task_file to be destroyed
> > + */
> > +__bpf_kfunc void bpf_iter_task_file_destroy(struct bpf_iter_task_file *it)
> > +{
> > + struct bpf_iter_task_file_kern *kit = (void *)it;
> > + struct bpf_iter_task_file_item *item = &kit->item;
> > +
> > + if (item->file)
> > + fput(item->file);
> > +}
> > +
> > __bpf_kfunc_end_defs();
> >
> > DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct mmap_unlock_irq_work, mmap_unlock_work);
> > --
> > 2.39.5
> >
