On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 5:23 AM Pu Lehui <pulehui@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 2022/6/4 5:03, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 2:03 PM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On 5/30/22 11:28 AM, Pu Lehui wrote: > >>> The members of bpf_prog_info, which are line_info, jited_line_info, > >>> jited_ksyms and jited_func_lens, store u64 address pointed to the > >>> corresponding memory regions. Memory addresses are conceptually > >>> unsigned, (unsigned long) casting makes more sense, so let's make > >>> a change for conceptual uniformity. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> --- > >>> tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c | 9 +++++---- > >>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c > >>> index 5c503096ef43..7beb060d0671 100644 > >>> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c > >>> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c > >>> @@ -127,7 +127,8 @@ struct bpf_prog_linfo *bpf_prog_linfo__new(const struct bpf_prog_info *info) > >>> prog_linfo->raw_linfo = malloc(data_sz); > >>> if (!prog_linfo->raw_linfo) > >>> goto err_free; > >>> - memcpy(prog_linfo->raw_linfo, (void *)(long)info->line_info, data_sz); > >>> + memcpy(prog_linfo->raw_linfo, (void *)(unsigned long)info->line_info, > >>> + data_sz); > >> > >> Took in patch 1-3, lgtm, thanks! My question around the cleanups in patch 4-6 ... > >> there are various other such cases e.g. in libbpf, perhaps makes sense to clean all > >> of them up at once and not just the 4 locations in here. > > > > if (void *)(long) pattern is wrong, then I guess the best replacement > > should be (void *)(uintptr_t) ? > > > > I also think that (void *)(uintptr_t) would be the best replacement. I > applied the changes to kernel/bpf and samples/bpf, and it worked fine. > But in selftests/bpf, the following similar error occur at compile time: > > progs/test_cls_redirect.c:504:11: error: cast to 'uint8_t *' (aka > 'unsigned char *') from smaller integer type 'uintptr_t' (aka 'unsigned > int') [-Werror,-Wint-to-pointer-cast] > .head = (uint8_t *)(uintptr_t)skb->data, this is BPF-side code so using system's uintptr_t definition won't work correctly here. Just do (unsigned long) instead? > > I take clang to compile with the front and back end separation, like > samples/bpf, and it works. It seems that the all-in-one clang has > problems handling the uintptr_t. > > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Daniel > > . > >
