diff mbox series

[bpf-next,v3,1/6] bpf: Unify data extension operation of jited_ksyms and jited_linfo

Message ID 20220530092815.1112406-2-pulehui@huawei.com (mailing list archive)
State Accepted
Delegated to: BPF
Headers show
Series Support riscv jit to provide | expand

Checks

Context Check Description
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-2 success Logs for Kernel LATEST on ubuntu-latest with llvm-15
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-3 success Logs for Kernel LATEST on z15 with gcc
netdev/tree_selection success Clearly marked for bpf-next
netdev/fixes_present success Fixes tag not required for -next series
netdev/subject_prefix success Link
netdev/cover_letter success Series has a cover letter
netdev/patch_count success Link
netdev/header_inline success No static functions without inline keyword in header files
netdev/build_32bit success Errors and warnings before: 13 this patch: 13
netdev/cc_maintainers success CCed 14 of 14 maintainers
netdev/build_clang success Errors and warnings before: 7 this patch: 7
netdev/module_param success Was 0 now: 0
netdev/verify_signedoff success Signed-off-by tag matches author and committer
netdev/check_selftest success No net selftest shell script
netdev/verify_fixes success No Fixes tag
netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn success Errors and warnings before: 13 this patch: 13
netdev/checkpatch success total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 17 lines checked
netdev/kdoc success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/source_inline success Was 0 now: 0
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-1 fail Logs for Kernel LATEST on ubuntu-latest with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-PR fail merge-conflict

Commit Message

Pu Lehui May 30, 2022, 9:28 a.m. UTC 
We found that 32-bit environment can not print bpf line info due
to data inconsistency between jited_ksyms[0] and jited_linfo[0].

For example:
jited_kyms[0] = 0xb800067c, jited_linfo[0] = 0xffffffffb800067c

We know that both of them store bpf func address, but due to the
different data extension operations when extended to u64, they may
not be the same. We need to unify the data extension operations of
them.

Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
---
 kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 5 +++--
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
index e0aead17dff4..2929a4aab82c 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
@@ -4095,14 +4095,15 @@  static int bpf_prog_get_info_by_fd(struct file *file,
 		info.nr_jited_line_info = 0;
 	if (info.nr_jited_line_info && ulen) {
 		if (bpf_dump_raw_ok(file->f_cred)) {
+			unsigned long ladd;
 			__u64 __user *user_linfo;
 			u32 i;
 
 			user_linfo = u64_to_user_ptr(info.jited_line_info);
 			ulen = min_t(u32, info.nr_jited_line_info, ulen);
 			for (i = 0; i < ulen; i++) {
-				if (put_user((__u64)(long)prog->aux->jited_linfo[i],
-					     &user_linfo[i]))
+				ladd = (unsigned long)prog->aux->jited_linfo[i];
+				if (put_user((__u64)ladd, &user_linfo[i]))
 					return -EFAULT;
 			}
 		} else {