Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Subject | Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1] bpf: Return -ENOTSUPP if callbacks are not allowed in non-JITed programs | From | Tiezhu Yang <> | Date | Thu, 4 Jan 2024 15:41:48 +0800 |
| |
On 01/03/2024 08:05 AM, John Fastabend wrote: > Eduard Zingerman wrote: >> On Mon, 2023-12-25 at 17:18 +0800, Tiezhu Yang wrote: >>> If CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON is not set and bpf_jit_enable is 0, there >>> exist 6 failed tests.
...
>>> Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn> >>> --- >>> kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 2 +- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c >>> index a376eb609c41..1c780a893284 100644 >>> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c >>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c >>> @@ -19069,7 +19069,7 @@ static int fixup_call_args(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) >>> * have to be rejected, since interpreter doesn't support them yet. >>> */ >>> verbose(env, "callbacks are not allowed in non-JITed programs\n"); >>> - return -EINVAL; >>> + return -ENOTSUPP; >>> } >>> >>> if (!bpf_pseudo_call(insn)) >> >> I agree with this change, however I think that it should be consistent. >> Quick and non-exhaustive grepping shows that there are 4 places where >> "non-JITed" is used in error messages: in check_map_func_compatibility() >> and in fixup_call_args(). >> All these places currently use -EINVAL and should be updated to -ENOTSUPP, >> if this change gets a green light. > > My preference is to just leave them as is unless its a serious > problem. In this case any userspace has likely already figured > out how to handle these errors so I don't think there is much > value in changing things.
I am not quite sure whether to ignore this patch, but the state of this patch is "Changes Requested" [1], I guess I should send v2 as Eduard suggested.
[1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20231225091830.6094-1-yangtiezhu@loongson.cn/
Thanks, Tiezhu
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |