On Thu, Nov 28, 2024 at 10:22AM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: [..] > Moving bpf_base_func_proto() all the way to the top was incorrect, > but here we can move it just above this bpf_token_capable() check > and remove extra indent like: > > func_proto = bpf_base_func_proto(); > if (func_proto) > return func_proto; > if (!bpf_token_capable(prog->aux->token, CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) > return NULL; > switch (func_id) { > case BPF_FUNC_probe_write_user: > > that will align it with the style of bpf_base_func_proto(). > > pw-bot: cr Ack, let me change that. Below is preview of v4 for this bit. @@ -1417,6 +1409,8 @@ late_initcall(bpf_key_sig_kfuncs_init); static const struct bpf_func_proto * bpf_tracing_func_proto(enum bpf_func_id func_id, const struct bpf_prog *prog) { + const struct bpf_func_proto *func_proto; + switch (func_id) { case BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem: return &bpf_map_lookup_elem_proto; @@ -1458,9 +1452,6 @@ bpf_tracing_func_proto(enum bpf_func_id func_id, const struct bpf_prog *prog) return &bpf_perf_event_read_proto; case BPF_FUNC_get_prandom_u32: return &bpf_get_prandom_u32_proto; - case BPF_FUNC_probe_write_user: - return security_locked_down(LOCKDOWN_BPF_WRITE_USER) < 0 ? - NULL : bpf_get_probe_write_proto(); case BPF_FUNC_probe_read_user: return &bpf_probe_read_user_proto; case BPF_FUNC_probe_read_kernel: @@ -1539,7 +1530,22 @@ bpf_tracing_func_proto(enum bpf_func_id func_id, const struct bpf_prog *prog) case BPF_FUNC_trace_vprintk: return bpf_get_trace_vprintk_proto(); default: - return bpf_base_func_proto(func_id, prog); + break; + } + + func_proto = bpf_base_func_proto(func_id, prog); + if (func_proto) + return func_proto; + + if (!bpf_token_capable(prog->aux->token, CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) + return NULL; + + switch (func_id) { + case BPF_FUNC_probe_write_user: + return security_locked_down(LOCKDOWN_BPF_WRITE_USER) < 0 ? + NULL : &bpf_probe_write_user_proto; + default: + return NULL; } }