On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 10:26 PM Song Liu <song@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Instead of BUG_ON(), fail gracefully and return orig_prog.
>
> Fixes: 1022a5498f6f ("bpf, x86_64: Use bpf_jit_binary_pack_alloc")
> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <song@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 6 +++++-
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> index 643f38b91e30..08e8fd8f954a 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> @@ -2380,7 +2380,11 @@ struct bpf_prog *bpf_int_jit_compile(struct bpf_prog *prog)
> *
> * Both cases are serious bugs that we should not continue.
I tweaked that comment a bit, since it's no longer accurate and
pushed to bpf-next.
Thanks!
> */
> - BUG_ON(bpf_jit_binary_pack_finalize(prog, header, rw_header));
> + if (WARN_ON(bpf_jit_binary_pack_finalize(prog, header, rw_header))) {
> + prog = orig_prog;
> + goto out_addrs;
> + }
> +
> bpf_tail_call_direct_fixup(prog);
> } else {
> jit_data->addrs = addrs;
> --
> 2.30.2
>
