Re: [PATCH RFC bpf-next 1/1] bpf: Support 64-bit pointers to kfuncs

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 1:55 PM Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> In any case, I don't have a really strong opinion here, just explaining
> my thought process. If the consensus is to drop it, I would not mind
> dropping it at all.

I think doing:
+       desc = find_kfunc_desc(prog, func_id, offset);
+       if (!desc)
+               return -EFAULT;

would be enough to catch that verifier issue.
We have similar code in several places.
When we can print verbose() into the verifier log, we do.
In other cases we just EFAULT which is a sign that something
wrong with the verifier.
We don't use WARN in all those cases.



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux