On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 09:48:23PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 05:58:29PM -0600, David Vernet wrote:
> > silently check for and ignore these cases at runtime. When we have e.g.
> > per-argument kfunc flags, it might be helpful to add another KF_CPU-type
> > flag that specifies that the verifier should validate that it's a valid
> > CPU.
>
> ...
>
> > +void bpf_cpumask_set_cpu(u32 cpu, struct bpf_cpumask *cpumask)
> > +{
> > + if (!cpu_valid(cpu))
> > + return;
> > +
> > + cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, (struct cpumask *)cpumask);
> > +}
>
> ...
>
> > +void bpf_cpumask_clear_cpu(u32 cpu, struct bpf_cpumask *cpumask)
> > +{
> > + if (!cpu_valid(cpu))
> > + return;
>
> I don't think we'll be able to get rid of this with KF_CPU or special suffix.
> The argument might be a variable and not a constant at the verification time.
> We would have to allow passing unknown vars otherwise the UX will be too restrictive,
> so this run-time check would have to stay.
Makes sense. We'll just leave it as is then and document that passing in
cpu >= nr_cpus is silently ignored for any kfunc taking a cpu argument.
