Em qua., 31 de mar. de 2021 às 04:02, Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu:
>
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 4:16 PM Alexei Starovoitov
> <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 3:54 PM Pedro Tammela <pctammela@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > BPF_CALL_2(bpf_ringbuf_submit, void *, sample, u64, flags)
> > > {
> > > + if (unlikely(flags & ~(BPF_RB_NO_WAKEUP | BPF_RB_FORCE_WAKEUP)))
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > +
> > > bpf_ringbuf_commit(sample, flags, false /* discard */);
> > > +
> > > return 0;
> >
> > I think ringbuf design was meant for bpf_ringbuf_submit to never fail.
> > If we do flag validation it probably should be done at the verifier time.
>
> Oops, replied on another version already. But yes, BPF verifier relies
> on it succeeding. I don't think we can do flags validation at BPF
> verification time, though, because it is defined as non-const integer
> and we do have valid cases where we dynamically determine whether to
> FORCE_WAKEUP or NO_WAKEUP, based on application-driven criteria (e.g.,
> amount of enqueued data).
Then shouldn't we remove the flags check in 'bpf_ringbuf_output()'?
