On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 10:31 PM Song Liu <song@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Using prog->jited_len is simpler and more accurate than current > estimation (header + header->size). > > Signed-off-by: Song Liu <song@xxxxxxxxxx> Hmm... CI [1] reports error on test_progs 159/tailcalls, and bisect points to this one. However, I couldn't figure out why this breaks tail call. round_up(PAGE_SIZE) does fix it though. But that won't be accurate, right? Any suggestions on what could be the reason for these failures? Thanks, Song [1] https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/runs/5060194776?check_suite_focus=true > --- > kernel/bpf/core.c | 5 +---- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c > index 14199228a6f0..e3fe53df0a71 100644 > --- a/kernel/bpf/core.c > +++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c > @@ -537,13 +537,10 @@ long bpf_jit_limit_max __read_mostly; > static void > bpf_prog_ksym_set_addr(struct bpf_prog *prog) > { > - const struct bpf_binary_header *hdr = bpf_jit_binary_hdr(prog); > - unsigned long addr = (unsigned long)hdr; > - > WARN_ON_ONCE(!bpf_prog_ebpf_jited(prog)); > > prog->aux->ksym.start = (unsigned long) prog->bpf_func; > - prog->aux->ksym.end = addr + hdr->size; > + prog->aux->ksym.end = prog->aux->ksym.start + prog->jited_len; > } > > static void > -- > 2.30.2 >
