On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 12:11 PM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
<memxor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> static int bpf_map_alloc_off_arr(struct bpf_map *map)
> {
> - bool has_spin_lock = map_value_has_spin_lock(map);
> - bool has_timer = map_value_has_timer(map);
> bool has_fields = !IS_ERR_OR_NULL(map);
> struct btf_field_offs *fo;
> - u32 i;
> + struct btf_record *rec;
> + u32 i, *off;
> + u8 *sz;
>
> - if (!has_spin_lock && !has_timer && !has_fields) {
> + if (!has_fields) {
> map->field_offs = NULL;
> return 0;
> }
> @@ -970,32 +987,14 @@ static int bpf_map_alloc_off_arr(struct bpf_map *map)
> return -ENOMEM;
> map->field_offs = fo;
>
> - fo->cnt = 0;
> - if (has_spin_lock) {
> - i = fo->cnt;
> -
> - fo->field_off[i] = map->spin_lock_off;
> - fo->field_sz[i] = sizeof(struct bpf_spin_lock);
> - fo->cnt++;
> - }
> - if (has_timer) {
> - i = fo->cnt;
> -
> - fo->field_off[i] = map->timer_off;
> - fo->field_sz[i] = sizeof(struct bpf_timer);
> - fo->cnt++;
> - }
> - if (has_fields) {
> - struct btf_record *rec = map->record;
> - u32 *off = &fo->field_off[fo->cnt];
> - u8 *sz = &fo->field_sz[fo->cnt];
> -
> - for (i = 0; i < rec->cnt; i++) {
> - *off++ = rec->fields[i].offset;
> - *sz++ = btf_field_type_size(rec->fields[i].type);
> - }
> - fo->cnt += rec->cnt;
> + rec = map->record;
> + off = &fo->field_off[fo->cnt];
> + sz = &fo->field_sz[fo->cnt];
Another bug that would have been obvious if you run any tests.
(fo->cnt contains garbage)
I'm surprised by the amount of issues in the series.
> + for (i = 0; i < rec->cnt; i++) {
> + *off++ = rec->fields[i].offset;
> + *sz++ = btf_field_type_size(rec->fields[i].type);
> }
Anyway, pushed this patch as well after fixing this bug.
