On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 3:30 AM Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 12:50 AM Alexei Starovoitov > <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 8:59 AM Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > BPF_PROG_TYPE_RAW_TRACEPOINT_WRITABLE and BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING are > > > trace type as well, which may also cause unexpected memory allocation if > > > we set BPF_F_NO_PREALLOC. > > > Let's also warn on both of them. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 2 ++ > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > > > index df3ec6b05f05..f9c0f4889a3a 100644 > > > --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > > > +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > > > @@ -12570,6 +12570,8 @@ static bool is_tracing_prog_type(enum bpf_prog_type type) > > > case BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACEPOINT: > > > case BPF_PROG_TYPE_PERF_EVENT: > > > case BPF_PROG_TYPE_RAW_TRACEPOINT: > > > + case BPF_PROG_TYPE_RAW_TRACEPOINT_WRITABLE: > > > + case BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING: > > > > BPF_TRACE_ITER should probably be excluded. > > Right, I have verified that BPF_TRACE_ITER can be excluded. > Will change it. Probably more than that. See that your change broke BPF CI and selftests are failing. Which means it breaks existing bpf programs.
