On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 10:38:04AM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: ... > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > > index f7f892a52a37..761c70899754 100644 > > --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > > +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > > @@ -21281,11 +21281,15 @@ static int do_misc_fixups(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) > > * changed in some incompatible and hard to support > > * way, it's fine to back out this inlining logic > > */ > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP > > insn_buf[0] = BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_0, (u32)(unsigned long)&pcpu_hot.cpu_number); > > insn_buf[1] = BPF_MOV64_PERCPU_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0); > > insn_buf[2] = BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0); > > cnt = 3; > > - > > +#else > > + BPF_ALU32_REG(BPF_XOR, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0), > > um... shouldn't this be `insns_buf[0] = ` assignment? And that comma > instead of semicolon at the end? Yeah.. my bad, I tested it with the wrong .config that has CONFIG_SMP enabled. I'll send a v3 with the proper code, sorry for the noise. -Andrea > > pw-bot: cr > > > + cnt = 1; > > +#endif > > new_prog = bpf_patch_insn_data(env, i + delta, insn_buf, cnt); > > if (!new_prog) > > return -ENOMEM; > > -- > > 2.47.1 > >
