On 07/25/2017 08:20 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 18:40:23 +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
[ +Martin ]
Sorry, I thought I CCed Martin.
On 07/24/2017 11:22 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
To read translated and jited instructions from the kernel,
one has to set certain pointers of struct bpf_prog_info to
pre-allocated user buffers. Unfortunately, the existing
bpf_obj_get_info_by_fd() helper zeros struct bpf_prog_info
before passing it to the kernel.
Keeping the zeroing seems like a good idea in general, since
kernel will check if the structure was zeroed. Add a new
helper for those more advanced users who can be trusted to
take care of zeroing themselves.
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicin...@netronome.com>
---
I'm happy to change the name of the new function.
tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c | 10 ++++++++--
tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h | 2 ++
2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
index 412a7c82995a..2703fa282b65 100644
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
@@ -308,13 +308,12 @@ int bpf_map_get_fd_by_id(__u32 id)
return sys_bpf(BPF_MAP_GET_FD_BY_ID, &attr, sizeof(attr));
}
-int bpf_obj_get_info_by_fd(int prog_fd, void *info, __u32 *info_len)
+int __bpf_obj_get_info_by_fd(int prog_fd, void *info, __u32 *info_len)
{
union bpf_attr attr;
int err;
bzero(&attr, sizeof(attr));
- bzero(info, *info_len);
Looks a bit unintentional to me, e.g. 95b9afd3987f ("bpf: Test for bpf
ID") did set up pointers in test_bpf_obj_id(), but later only checked
for the {jited,xlated}_prog_len.
Clearing out the pointers looks not to useful. Lets just push the need
for bzero() to call-sites in general in this case.
Should I target this at net then? To avoid backwards compatibility
issues?
Yep, sounds reasonable. Thanks!
