On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 12:59:31AM +0100, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
SNIP
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index 71158a6786a1..47d390923610 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -2115,8 +2115,8 @@ static int add_subprog(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int off)
> struct bpf_kfunc_desc {
> struct btf_func_model func_model;
> u32 func_id;
> - s32 imm;
> u16 offset;
> + unsigned long addr;
> };
>
> struct bpf_kfunc_btf {
> @@ -2166,6 +2166,19 @@ find_kfunc_desc(const struct bpf_prog *prog, u32 func_id, u16 offset)
> sizeof(tab->descs[0]), kfunc_desc_cmp_by_id_off);
> }
>
> +int bpf_get_kfunc_addr(const struct bpf_prog *prog, u32 func_id, u16 offset,
> + u8 **func_addr)
> +{
> + const struct bpf_kfunc_desc *desc;
> +
> + desc = find_kfunc_desc(prog, func_id, offset);
> + if (!desc)
> + return -EFAULT;
should we warn here? this should alwayss succeed, right?
jirka
> +
> + *func_addr = (u8 *)desc->addr;
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
SNIP
