Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] bpf: Remove struct bpf_verifier_env argument from
 print_bpf_insn
To:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
        Quentin Monnet <quentin.monnet@netronome.com>
Cc:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, netdev@vger.kernel.org
References: <20180321150212.5586-1-jolsa@kernel.org>
 <d28f0a7f-3721-88f3-f4e9-97a73a8833e5@netronome.com>
 <20180321183749.GF2707@krava>
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Message-ID: <e30c5b79-c2a9-d0ed-e626-bf81a0705805@iogearbox.net>
Date:   Thu, 22 Mar 2018 10:34:18 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180321183749.GF2707@krava>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 03/21/2018 07:37 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 05:25:33PM +0000, Quentin Monnet wrote:
>> 2018-03-21 16:02 UTC+0100 ~ Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
>>> We use print_bpf_insn in user space (bpftool and soon perf),
>>> so it'd be nice to keep it generic and strip it off the kernel
>>> struct bpf_verifier_env argument.
>>>
>>> This argument can be safely removed, because its users can
>>> use the struct bpf_insn_cbs::private_data to pass it.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
>>> ---
>>>  kernel/bpf/disasm.c   | 52 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------
>>>  kernel/bpf/disasm.h   |  5 +----
>>>  kernel/bpf/verifier.c |  6 +++---
>>>  3 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>>> index c6eff108aa99..9f27d3fa7259 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>>> @@ -202,8 +202,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(bpf_verifier_log_write);
>>>   * generic for symbol export. The function was renamed, but not the calls in
>>>   * the verifier to avoid complicating backports. Hence the alias below.
>>>   */
>>> -static __printf(2, 3) void verbose(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
>>> -				   const char *fmt, ...)
>>> +static __printf(2, 3) void verbose(void *private_data, const char *fmt, ...)
>>>  	__attribute__((alias("bpf_verifier_log_write")));
>>
>> Just as a note, verbose() will be aliased to a function whose prototype
>> differs (bpf_verifier_log_write() still expects a struct
>> bpf_verifier_env as its first argument). I am not so familiar with
>> function aliases, could this change be a concern?
> 
> yea, but as it was pointer for pointer switch I did not
> see any problem with that.. I'll check more

Ok, holding off for now until we have clarification. Other option could also
be to make it void *private_data everywhere and for the kernel writer then
do struct bpf_verifier_env *env = private_data.