On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 8:38 PM Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 4:55 PM Matteo Croce <mcroce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c > > @@ -13,6 +13,11 @@ > > #define CREATE_TRACE_POINTS > > #include "bpf_testmod-events.h" > > > > +typedef int (*func_proto_typedef___match)(long); > > +typedef int (*func_proto_typedef___overflow)(func_proto_typedef___match); > > There is no need for "___flavor" on the kernel side of type definition. > It makes the test confusing to read. > > > +func_proto_typedef___match funcp = NULL; > > +func_proto_typedef___overflow funcp_of = NULL; > > We have BTF_TYPE_EMIT() macro to avoid unnecessary declaration. > > > +typedef int (*func_proto_typedef___match)(long); > > +typedef int (*func_proto_typedef___overflow)(func_proto_typedef___match); > > With <=1 in the previous patch such single depth of func_proto > was reaching the recursion limit. > Hence the fix <=0 was necessary. > I've also changed this test to: > > +typedef int (*func_proto_typedef)(long); > +typedef int (*func_proto_typedef_nested1)(func_proto_typedef); > +typedef int (*func_proto_typedef_nested2)(func_proto_typedef_nested1); > > in bpf_testmod.c and in progs/core_kern_overflow.c > and > bpf_core_type_exists(func_proto_typedef_nested2); > to go above the limit. > > Also added bpf_core_type_exists(func_proto_typedef_nested1) > to progs/core_kern.c to stay at the limit. > > Please see the result in bpf-next. Awesome. I've seen both patches in the repo, LGTM. -- per aspera ad upstream
