On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 5:02 AM Denis Kirjanov <kda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 11/10/20, xiakaixu1987@xxxxxxxxx <xiakaixu1987@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > From: Kaixu Xia <kaixuxia@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > The unsigned variable datasec_id is assigned a return value from the call
> > to check_pseudo_btf_id(), which may return negative error code.
> >
> > Fixes coccicheck warning:
> >
> > ./kernel/bpf/verifier.c:9616:5-15: WARNING: Unsigned expression compared
> > with zero: datasec_id > 0
> >
> > Reported-by: Tosk Robot <tencent_os_robot@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Kaixu Xia <kaixuxia@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > index 6200519582a6..e9d8d4309bb4 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > @@ -9572,7 +9572,7 @@ static int check_pseudo_btf_id(struct bpf_verifier_env
> > *env,
> > struct bpf_insn *insn,
> > struct bpf_insn_aux_data *aux)
> > {
> > - u32 datasec_id, type, id = insn->imm;
> > + s32 datasec_id, type, id = insn->imm;
>
> but the value is passed as u32 to btf_type_by_id()...
>
> btf_find_by_name_kind() returns s32
Right, valid range of BTF type IDs are >= 0 and (significantly) less
than INT_MAX. So s32 is used to signal valid BTF ID or negative error,
but all the APIs accepting BTF ID accept it as just u32.
>
>
> > const struct btf_var_secinfo *vsi;
> > const struct btf_type *datasec;
> > const struct btf_type *t;
> > --
> > 2.20.0
> >
> >
