Both acquire_lock_state and release_lock_state take the bpf_func_state
as a parameter, while find_lock_state does not. Future patches will end
up requiring operating on non-cur_func(env) bpf_func_state (for
resilient locks), hence just make the prototype consistent and take
bpf_func_state directly.
Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@xxxxxxxxx>
---
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 5 ++---
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index c106720d0c62..0ff436c06c13 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -1436,10 +1436,9 @@ static int release_lock_state(struct bpf_func_state *state, int type, int id, vo
return -EINVAL;
}
-static struct bpf_resource_state *find_lock_state(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, enum res_state_type type,
+static struct bpf_resource_state *find_lock_state(struct bpf_func_state *state, enum res_state_type type,
int id, void *ptr)
{
- struct bpf_func_state *state = cur_func(env);
int i;
for (i = 0; i < state->acquired_res; i++) {
@@ -11873,7 +11872,7 @@ static int check_reg_allocation_locked(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_
if (!cur_func(env)->active_locks)
return -EINVAL;
- s = find_lock_state(env, RES_TYPE_LOCK, id, ptr);
+ s = find_lock_state(cur_func(env), RES_TYPE_LOCK, id, ptr);
if (!s) {
verbose(env, "held lock and object are not in the same allocation\n");
return -EINVAL;
--
2.43.5
