On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 11:32:07AM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 5:41 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 11:29:40AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > The only problem I now have is the one XXX, I'm not entirely sure what
> > > signature to use there.
> >
> > > @@ -119,6 +119,7 @@ int bpf_struct_ops_test_run(struct bpf_p
> > > op_idx = prog->expected_attach_type;
> > > err = bpf_struct_ops_prepare_trampoline(tlinks, link,
> > > &st_ops->func_models[op_idx],
> > > + /* XXX */ NULL,
> > > image, image + PAGE_SIZE);
> > > if (err < 0)
> > > goto out;
> >
> > Duh, that should ofcourse be something of dummy_ops_test_ret_fn type.
> > Let me go fix that.
>
> Right. That should work.
> A bit wasteful to generate real code just to read hash from it
> via cfi_get_func_hash(), but it's a neat idea.
Right, bit wasteful. But the advantage is that I get a structure with
pointers that exactly mirrors the structure we're writing.
> I guess it's hard to get kcfi from __ADDRESSABLE in plain C
> and sprinkling asm("cfi_xxx: .long __kcfi_typeid..."); is worse?
> Even if it's a macro ?
I can try this, but I'm not sure it'll be pretty. Even if I wrap it in a
decent macro, I still get to define a ton of variables and then wrap the
lot into a structure -- one that expects function pointers.
I'll see how horrible it will become.
