On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 5:56 PM KP Singh <kpsingh@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From: KP Singh <kpsingh@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> As we need to introduce a third type of attachment for trampolines, the
> flattened signature of arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline gets even more
> complicated.
>
> Refactor the prog and count argument to arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline to
> use bpf_tramp_progs to simplify the addition and accounting for new
> attachment types.
>
> Signed-off-by: KP Singh <kpsingh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
See note about const-ification of trampoline and naming suggestion,
but looks good overall:
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@xxxxxx>
> arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 31 ++++++++++---------
> include/linux/bpf.h | 13 ++++++--
> kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c | 12 ++++++-
> kernel/bpf/trampoline.c | 62 +++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> 4 files changed, 73 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)
>
[...]
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/trampoline.c b/kernel/bpf/trampoline.c
> index 704fa787fec0..cfe96d4cd89f 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/trampoline.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/trampoline.c
> @@ -190,40 +190,49 @@ static int register_fentry(struct bpf_trampoline *tr, void *new_addr)
> return ret;
> }
>
> -/* Each call __bpf_prog_enter + call bpf_func + call __bpf_prog_exit is ~50
> - * bytes on x86. Pick a number to fit into BPF_IMAGE_SIZE / 2
> - */
> -#define BPF_MAX_TRAMP_PROGS 40
> +static struct bpf_tramp_progs *
> +bpf_trampoline_update_progs(struct bpf_trampoline *tr, int *total)
reading the code again, seems like bpf_trampoline_update_progs is
really more like bpf_trampoline_get_progs, no? It doesn't modify
trampoline itself, so might as well mark tr as const pointer.
> +{
> + struct bpf_tramp_progs *tprogs;
> + struct bpf_prog **progs;
> + struct bpf_prog_aux *aux;
> + int kind;
> +
[...]
