On 8/10/23 11:35 AM, Dave Marchevsky wrote:
Commit 6018e1f407cc ("bpf: implement numbers iterator") added the
BTF_TYPE_EMIT line that this patch is modifying. The struct btf_iter_num
doesn't exist, so only a forward declaration is emitted in BTF:
FWD 'btf_iter_num' fwd_kind=struct
Since that commit was probably hoping to ensure that struct bpf_iter_num
is emitted in vmlinux BTF, this patch changes it to the correct type.
This isn't marked "Fixes" because the extraneous btf_iter_num FWD wasn't
causing any issues that I noticed, aside from mild confusion when I
looked through the code.
Signed-off-by: Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@xxxxxx>
---
kernel/bpf/bpf_iter.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_iter.c b/kernel/bpf/bpf_iter.c
index 96856f130cbf..20ef64445754 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/bpf_iter.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/bpf_iter.c
@@ -793,7 +793,7 @@ __bpf_kfunc int bpf_iter_num_new(struct bpf_iter_num *it, int start, int end)
BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct bpf_iter_num_kern) != sizeof(struct bpf_iter_num));
BUILD_BUG_ON(__alignof__(struct bpf_iter_num_kern) != __alignof__(struct bpf_iter_num));
- BTF_TYPE_EMIT(struct btf_iter_num);
+ BTF_TYPE_EMIT(struct bpf_iter_num);
I think this can be removed instead.
In kernel/bpf/bpf_iter.c, we have
__bpf_kfunc int bpf_iter_num_new(struct bpf_iter_num *it, int start, int
end)
__bpf_kfunc int *bpf_iter_num_next(struct bpf_iter_num* it)
__bpf_kfunc void bpf_iter_num_destroy(struct bpf_iter_num *it)
This will ensure that bpf_iter_num btf type will be generated by
the compiler.
/* start == end is legit, it's an empty range and we'll just get NULL
* on first (and any subsequent) bpf_iter_num_next() call
