On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 12:51 AM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 11:27:04AM IST, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 12:11 PM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi > > <memxor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Introduce local kptrs, i.e. PTR_TO_BTF_ID that point to a type in > > > program BTF. This is indicated by the presence of MEM_TYPE_LOCAL type > > > tag in reg->type to avoid having to check btf_is_kernel when trying to > > > match argument types in helpers. > > ... > > > > > > + /* MEM is of a type from program BTF, not kernel BTF. This is used to > > > + * tag PTR_TO_BTF_ID allocated using bpf_kptr_alloc. > > > + */ > > > + MEM_TYPE_LOCAL = BIT(11 + BPF_BASE_TYPE_BITS), > > > + > > > > I know we have bpf_core_type_id_local. > > It sort-of makes sense in the context of the program. > > type_id_local -> inside the program > > type_id_kernel -> kernel > > > > but in the context of the verifier "local kptr" doesn't read right. > > Especially in MEM_TYPE_LOCAL. > > Yes, "local kptr" is not the best name. "kptr to local type" is too verbose > though, do you have any suggestions on what to call this? > > > > > Also, since it applies to PTR_TO_BTF_ID, should it prefix with PTR_? > > Probably MEM_ is actually cleaner. > > And we're not consistent already with MEM_PERCPU. > > We can live with this inconsistency for now. > > > > So how about we rename MEM_ALLOC to MEM_RINGBUF, > > since it's special bpf_ringbuf_reserve() memory > > and use MEM_ALLOC to indicate the memory that came from bpf_obj_new ? > > > > Yes, it makes sense. I think Andrii has expressed the same wish to rename it to > something similar to MEM_RINGBUF before in [0]. > > [0]: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAEf4BzYK939fgyc3LwNvoz3vPk2avyskP_3wRZO344irubXPtg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Great. Please rename then. Also let's all of us agree and stop using this [0] notation for links. It's an email and not an academic paper. Just insert the link.
