On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 10:48 AM Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > PTR_TO_TP_BUFFER was a quick hack for tiny scratch area. > > Here I think the verifier should be smart from the start. > > > The next patch populates bpf_ctx_arg_aux with hardcoded 0 and 1. > > imo that's too hacky. Helper definitions shouldn't be in business > > of poking into such verifier internals. > > The reason I am using 0/1 so later on I can easily correlate > which rdonly_buf access size corresponds to key or value. I guess > I can have a verifier callback to given an ctx argument index to > get the access size. I see. Hardcoding key vs value in some way is necessary, of course. Some #define for that with clear name would be good. I was pointing out that 0/1 were used beyond that need.
