On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 07:26:01AM +0530, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:
> static int btf_check_func_arg_match(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
> const struct btf *btf, u32 func_id,
> struct bpf_reg_state *regs,
> bool ptr_to_mem_ok,
> - struct bpf_kfunc_arg_meta *kfunc_meta,
> bool processing_call)
Something odd here.
Benjamin added the processing_call flag in
commit 95f2f26f3cac ("bpf: split btf_check_subprog_arg_match in two")
and we discussed to remove it.
> } else if (ptr_to_mem_ok && processing_call) {
since kfunc bit is gone from here the processing_call can be removed.
ptr_to_mem_ok and processing_call are two bool flags for the same thing, right?
> +static int process_kf_arg_ptr_to_kptr_strong(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
I fixed this bit while applying.
> +static int check_kfunc_args(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_kfunc_call_arg_meta *meta)
This function looks much better now.
The split of kfunc vs helper was long overdue.
Thank you for doing this.
I'm not convinced that KF_ARG_* is necessary, but it's much better than before.
So it's a step forward.
Pls watch for CI errors and follow up when necessary.
