From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC10AC742CF for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 15:43:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A076520863 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 15:43:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="gfddwTag" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727225AbfGLPnF (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jul 2019 11:43:05 -0400 Received: from mail-qk1-f193.google.com ([209.85.222.193]:33681 "EHLO mail-qk1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727053AbfGLPnF (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jul 2019 11:43:05 -0400 Received: by mail-qk1-f193.google.com with SMTP id r6so6751507qkc.0; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 08:43:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=cnr2C/JzDmwFpY8QG3EJIR58mB+sAsyN0pxTYko9fKw=; b=gfddwTagBd019wAjQEW4ILIuiOIvWifUcDVRviu8rR/HMssNDEGpKdiIIamCeZh6ga LME85eYU3r1nBvsJMqAr/wqE97iGbAlAx87g9gOTOxMCTTJkOb/a3Om4eS+V61nF8j+b uSuxh8ARaI0faBvYrvy+xkQuqx1oFTTOjC8SObBacUTcozhGFyYohwb+2GPinWR0FLlQ dmYr9eVnhQKpCmfZE8jAXXWRWeroeQXvBxDTB7SCrQH+qB6kgNUVwaDdpHIJK5AQJwCj lWdjuou0TzNgLY0TBbbzhAfeSmuDlLDYUFxGhn3EdpadlDBB8czjHASuERPm9bH9XQvq dpmw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=cnr2C/JzDmwFpY8QG3EJIR58mB+sAsyN0pxTYko9fKw=; b=JxsZmoU0ElW4bHu97ZnBDINY2yMNWWhjxRUrVR1ur3EsHC1+hCWgPv9/r72/0uzjhI jgMZ4CgJqsNiX5QpyzMOHbtfqmvIUVR0Cd/BiGkcSFPgmQ+2OFdaWA7jgq6qSbSkBGvN lPGDh7rBrd9+RulGOscXMWAdoWjak2k42JXmENe9Vniw2moRFea8tYYR4116/WLU9eeo KtMk0F4M+uzFaZjVa+k/ZVPuo07lyK9ftRUkMXor5OVwjSFFFDLpbz2Yst3wq9bzf7Zx 9TIiS9SMapVZ0Hdz8cW8gWtAo01VhuMF9FwU/Ocmiv7nCtyTIgOk/96bheOXY84TXzEJ OPtg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUY6mARM61uGB/6Ro5lwLnu65lD/MyEYAZyEi8E0gL2K782NPxM OncDQoO1HX29D8cN/XijWDHvsbPKT5rkWjl7jWM5MO1ZuTehFQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzilmLdGufgUzj9WVYNCuqzP8SOoBU4/3ciQqBOLCQtyJ/e0dIBXK4xXIyPYkAZ5YEnDvZJjAhjD2OcmXheJWI= X-Received: by 2002:a37:660d:: with SMTP id a13mr7065971qkc.36.1562946184072; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 08:43:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190711065307.2425636-1-andriin@fb.com> <0143c2e9-ac0d-33de-3019-85016d771c76@fb.com> In-Reply-To: From: Andrii Nakryiko Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 08:42:53 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 0/3] fix BTF verification size resolution To: Daniel Borkmann Cc: Yonghong Song , Andrii Nakryiko , "bpf@vger.kernel.org" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , Alexei Starovoitov , Kernel Team Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 5:59 AM Daniel Borkmann wrote: > > On 07/12/2019 08:03 AM, Yonghong Song wrote: > > On 7/10/19 11:53 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > >> BTF size resolution logic isn't always resolving type size correctly, leading > >> to erroneous map creation failures due to value size mismatch. > >> > >> This patch set: > >> 1. fixes the issue (patch #1); > >> 2. adds tests for trickier cases (patch #2); > >> 3. and converts few test cases utilizing BTF-defined maps, that previously > >> couldn't use typedef'ed arrays due to kernel bug (patch #3). > >> > >> Patch #1 can be applied against bpf tree, but selftest ones (#2 and #3) have > >> to go against bpf-next for now. > > > > Why #2 and #3 have to go to bpf-next? bpf tree also accepts tests, > > AFAIK. Maybe leave for Daniel and Alexei to decide in this particular case. > > Yes, corresponding test cases for fixes are also accepted for bpf tree, thanks. Thanks for merging, Daniel! My thinking was that at the time I posted patch set, BTF-defined map tests weren't yet merged into bpf, so I assumed it has to go against bpf-next. > > >> Andrii Nakryiko (3): > >> bpf: fix BTF verifier size resolution logic > >> selftests/bpf: add trickier size resolution tests > >> selftests/bpf: use typedef'ed arrays as map values > > > > Looks good to me. Except minor comments in patch 1/3, Ack the series. > > Acked-by: Yonghong Song > > > >> > >> kernel/bpf/btf.c | 14 ++- > >> .../bpf/progs/test_get_stack_rawtp.c | 3 +- > >> .../bpf/progs/test_stacktrace_build_id.c | 3 +- > >> .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_stacktrace_map.c | 2 +- > >> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_btf.c | 88 +++++++++++++++++++ > >> 5 files changed, 102 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > >> >