Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 10/17] libbpf: tighten BTF type ID rewriting with error checking

[Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 9:34 AM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 9:31 AM Andrii Nakryiko
> <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > static int remap_type_id(__u32 *type_id, void *ctx)
> > > > {
> > > >         int *id_map = ctx;
> > > >         int new_id = id_map[*type_id];
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > /* Here VOID stays VOID, that's all */
> > > >
> > > >         if (*type_id == 0)
> > > >                 return 0;
> > >
> > > Does it mean that id_map[0] is a garbage value?
> > > and all other code that might be doing id_map[idx] might be reading
> > > garbage if it doesn't have a check for idx == 0 ?
> >
> > No, id_map[0] == 0 by construction (id_map is obj->btf_type_map and is
> > calloc()'ed) and can be used as id_map[idx].
>
> Ok. Then why are you insisting on this micro optimization to return 0
> directly?
> That's the confusing part for me.

I'm not insisting:

  > but I'll rewrite it to a combined if if it makes it easier to follow

So I'm confused why you are confused.

>
> If it was:
> "if (new_id == 0 && *type_id != 0) { pr_warn"
> Then it would be clear what error condition is about.
> But 'return 0' messing things up in my mind,
> because it's far from obvious that first check is really a combination
> with the 2nd check and by itself it's a micro optimization to avoid
> reading id_map[0].

I didn't try to micro optimize, that's how I naturally think about the
problem. I'll rewrite the if, don't know why we are spending emails on
this still.