On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 6:10 PM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 5:22 PM Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > insn[0].imm = ext->ksym.kernel_btf_id;
> > insn[0].off = ext->ksym.btf_fd_idx;
> > - } else { /* unresolved weak kfunc */
> > - insn[0].imm = 0;
> > - insn[0].off = 0;
> > + } else { /* unresolved weak kfunc call */
> > + poison_kfunc_call(prog, i, relo->insn_idx, insn,
> > + relo->ext_idx, ext);
>
> With that done should we remove:
> /* skip for now, but return error when we find this in fixup_kfunc_call */
> if (!insn->imm)
> return 0;
> in check_kfunc_call()...
>
> and if (!func_id && !offset) in add_kfunc_call() ?
>
> That was added in commit a5d827275241 ("bpf: Be conservative while
> processing invalid kfunc calls")
I guess?.. I don't know if there was any other situation that this fix
was handling, but if it's only due to unresolved kfuncs by libbpf,
then yep.
