qiurui
/
Centos-kernel-stream-9
mirror of https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/src/kernel/centos-stream-9.git
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

bpf: Don't explicitly emit BTF for struct btf_iter_num 

JIRA: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-23643

commit f10ca5da5bd71e5cefed7995e75a7c873ce3816e
Author: Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@fb.com>
Date:   Fri Oct 13 13:44:22 2023 -0700

    bpf: Don't explicitly emit BTF for struct btf_iter_num
    
    Commit 6018e1f407cc ("bpf: implement numbers iterator") added the
    BTF_TYPE_EMIT line that this patch is modifying. The struct btf_iter_num
    doesn't exist, so only a forward declaration is emitted in BTF:
    
      FWD 'btf_iter_num' fwd_kind=struct
    
    That commit was probably hoping to ensure that struct bpf_iter_num is
    emitted in vmlinux BTF. A previous version of this patch changed the
    line to emit the correct type, but Yonghong confirmed that it would
    definitely be emitted regardless in [0], so this patch simply removes
    the line.
    
    This isn't marked "Fixes" because the extraneous btf_iter_num FWD wasn't
    causing any issues that I noticed, aside from mild confusion when I
    looked through the code.
    
      [0]: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/25d08207-43e6-36a8-5e0f-47a913d4cda5@linux.dev/
    
    Signed-off-by: Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@fb.com>
    Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
    Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
    Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
    Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20231013204426.1074286-2-davemarchevsky@fb.com

Signed-off-by: Artem Savkov <asavkov@redhat.com>
This commit is contained in:
Artem Savkov 2024-03-06 12:03:29 +01:00
parent 2a436b6f55
commit 88143cbfaa
1 changed files with 0 additions and 2 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
kernel/bpf/bpf_iter.c
View File

@ -793,8 +793,6 @@ __bpf_kfunc int bpf_iter_num_new(struct bpf_iter_num *it, int start, int end)
BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct bpf_iter_num_kern) != sizeof(struct bpf_iter_num));
BUILD_BUG_ON(__alignof__(struct bpf_iter_num_kern) != __alignof__(struct bpf_iter_num));
BTF_TYPE_EMIT(struct btf_iter_num);
/* start == end is legit, it's an empty range and we'll just get NULL
* on first (and any subsequent) bpf_iter_num_next() call
*/