On 18/8/23 06:31, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 09:41:46PM +0800, Leon Hwang wrote:
>> @@ -1147,6 +1152,7 @@ struct bpf_attach_target_info {
>> struct module *tgt_mod;
>> const char *tgt_name;
>> const struct btf_type *tgt_type;
>> + bool tail_call_ctx;
>
> Instead of extra flag here can you check tgt_prog->aux->tail_call_reachable in check_attach_btf_id()
> and set tr->flags there?
Should we check tgt_prog->aux->func[subprog]->is_func? Or, tgt_prog->aux->tail_call_reachable
is enough?
I think tgt_prog->aux->func[subprog]->is_func is required to check. It's because it's a bug
about subprog instead of tgt_prog.
In check_attach_btf_id():
bool tail_call_ctx;
// ...
ret = bpf_check_attach_target(&env->log, prog, tgt_prog, btf_id, &tgt_info, &tail_call_ctx);
// ...
tr->flags = (tail_call_ctx ? BPF_TRAMP_F_TAIL_CALL_CTX : 0);
How about changing like this? However, it's bad to change bpf_check_attach_target() declaration.
> Other than this the fix makes sense.
> Please trim your cc list when you respin.> Just maintainers, Maciej (author of fixes tag) and bpf@vger is enough.
I'll trim it.
Thanks,
Leon
