Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
between commit:
1d4126c4e119 ("libbpf: sanitize VAR to conservative 1-byte INT")
from Linus' tree and commit:
b03bc6853c0e ("libbpf: convert libbpf code to use new btf helpers")
from the bpf-next tree.
I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
diff --cc tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
index 2b57d7ea7836,3abf2dd1b3b5..000000000000
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
@@@ -1370,22 -1374,16 +1372,21 @@@ static void bpf_object__sanitize_btf(st
for (i = 1; i <= btf__get_nr_types(btf); i++) {
t = (struct btf_type *)btf__type_by_id(btf, i);
- kind = BTF_INFO_KIND(t->info);
- if (!has_datasec && kind == BTF_KIND_VAR) {
+ if (!has_datasec && btf_is_var(t)) {
/* replace VAR with INT */
t->info = BTF_INFO_ENC(BTF_KIND_INT, 0, 0);
- t->size = sizeof(int);
- *(int *)(t + 1) = BTF_INT_ENC(0, 0, 32);
+ /*
+ * using size = 1 is the safest choice, 4 will be too
+ * big and cause kernel BTF validation failure if
+ * original variable took less than 4 bytes
+ */
+ t->size = 1;
- *(int *)(t+1) = BTF_INT_ENC(0, 0, 8);
- } else if (!has_datasec && kind == BTF_KIND_DATASEC) {
++ *(int *)(t + 1) = BTF_INT_ENC(0, 0, 8);
+ } else if (!has_datasec && btf_is_datasec(t)) {
/* replace DATASEC with STRUCT */
- struct btf_var_secinfo *v = (void *)(t + 1);
- struct btf_member *m = (void *)(t + 1);
+ const struct btf_var_secinfo *v = btf_var_secinfos(t);
+ struct btf_member *m = btf_members(t);
struct btf_type *vt;
char *name;
Attachment:
pgpE5ae_z2jfy.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
