On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 2:35 AM Menglong Dong
<dongmenglong.8@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Add target btf to the function args of bpf_check_attach_target(), then
> the caller can specify the btf to check.
>
> Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong <dongmenglong.8@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> include/linux/bpf_verifier.h | 1 +
> kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 6 ++++--
> kernel/bpf/trampoline.c | 1 +
> kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 8 +++++---
> 4 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
> index 4b0f6600e499..6cb20efcfac3 100644
> --- a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
> +++ b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
> @@ -811,6 +811,7 @@ static inline void bpf_trampoline_unpack_key(u64 key, u32 *obj_id, u32 *btf_id)
> int bpf_check_attach_target(struct bpf_verifier_log *log,
> const struct bpf_prog *prog,
> const struct bpf_prog *tgt_prog,
> + struct btf *btf,
> u32 btf_id,
> struct bpf_attach_target_info *tgt_info);
> void bpf_free_kfunc_btf_tab(struct bpf_kfunc_btf_tab *tab);
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> index d1cd645ef9ac..6128c3131141 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> @@ -3401,9 +3401,11 @@ static int bpf_tracing_prog_attach(struct bpf_prog *prog,
> * need a new trampoline and a check for compatibility
> */
> struct bpf_attach_target_info tgt_info = {};
> + struct btf *btf;
>
> - err = bpf_check_attach_target(NULL, prog, tgt_prog, btf_id,
> - &tgt_info);
> + btf = tgt_prog ? tgt_prog->aux->btf : prog->aux->attach_btf;
I think it's better to keep this bit inside bpf_check_attach_target(),
since a lot of other code in there is working with if (tgt_prog) ...
so if the caller messes up passing tgt_prog->aux->btf with tgt_prog
the bug will be difficult to debug.
> + err = bpf_check_attach_target(NULL, prog, tgt_prog, btf,
> + btf_id, &tgt_info);
