On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 6:41 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 16:49:24 -0700 Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > Hi David, hi Jakub,
> >
> > The following pull-request contains BPF updates for your *net* tree.
> >
> > We've added 16 non-merge commits during the last 1 day(s) which contain
> > a total of 24 files changed, 354 insertions(+), 187 deletions(-).
> >
> > The main changes are:
> >
> > 1) x86 specific bits of fprobe/rethook, from Masami and Peter.
> >
> > 2) ice/xsk fixes, from Maciej and Magnus.
> >
> > 3) Various small fixes, from Andrii, Yonghong, Geliang and others.
>
> There are some new sparse warnings here that look semi-legit.
> As in harmless but not erroneous.
Both are new warnings and not due to these patches, right?
> kernel/trace/rethook.c:68:9: error: incompatible types in comparison expression (different address spaces):
> kernel/trace/rethook.c:68:9: void ( [noderef] __rcu * )( ... )
> kernel/trace/rethook.c:68:9: void ( * )( ... )
>
> 66 void rethook_free(struct rethook *rh)
> 67 {
> 68 rcu_assign_pointer(rh->handler, NULL);
> 69
> 70 call_rcu(&rh->rcu, rethook_free_rcu);
> 71 }
>
> Looks like this should be a WRITE_ONCE() ?
Masami, please take a look.
> And the __user annotations in bpf_trace.c are still not right,
> first arg of kprobe_multi_resolve_syms() should __user:
>
> kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2370:34: warning: incorrect type in argument 2 (different address spaces)
> kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2370:34: expected void const [noderef] __user *from
> kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2370:34: got void const *usyms
> kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2376:51: warning: incorrect type in argument 2 (different address spaces)
> kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2376:51: expected char const [noderef] __user *src
> kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2376:51: got char const *
> kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2443:49: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces)
> kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2443:49: expected void const *usyms
> kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2443:49: got void [noderef] __user *[assigned] usyms
This one is known. Still waiting for the fix from Jiri.
> How do you wanna proceed?
If they both are old I would proceed.
I don't consider sparse warnings as a blocker in general.
