Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210421190736.1538217-1-linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
 <CAEf4Bza6-Unvr7QmcbvVtNDPc4BNzf8zMaU4XardNqB_GnGDHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <236995f6-30ee-8047-624c-08d0a1552dc1@rasmusvillemoes.dk> <CABRcYmJFfdCU_QxX+gYRWc+7BSbmTWX84o_WT=oBg_CPr8qS=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <7e9d3337-eb7b-a2c8-a5ef-037d6a9765d7@rasmusvillemoes.dk> <CABRcYmLU0f9eSvsjBogKmc_FK8qykfR1pNx9VCW8Scjj4-VQQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABRcYm+2r0XmXX2uHr2E6BEj=WpEBRV93i0mLtHUTsz041Z0Tw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABRcYm+2r0XmXX2uHr2E6BEj=WpEBRV93i0mLtHUTsz041Z0Tw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 22 Apr 2021 08:43:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CAADnVQ+wFcjMzs2G1VAKW5WnFtcBgKMeJcK3ouKJYCR7GdvfWw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf: remove pointless code from bpf_do_trace_printk()
To:     Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org>
Cc:     Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@oracle.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 8:35 AM Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > I was having a stroll through lib/vsprintf.c and noticed bstr_printf:
> >
> >  * This function like C99 vsnprintf, but the difference is that vsnprintf gets
> >  * arguments from stack, and bstr_printf gets arguments from @bin_buf which is
> >  * a binary buffer that generated by vbin_printf.
> >
> > Maybe it would be easier to just build our argument buffer similarly
> > to what vbin_printf does.
>
> I've been experimenting with this idea and it is quite promising :) it
> also makes the code much cleaner, I find. I'll send a series asap.

You mean to use bstr_printf internally ? That could work indeed.
Make sure CONFIG_BINARY_PRINTF is selected.
CONFIG_TRACING does it already.

> BPF maintainers: should we fix forward or do you prefer reverting the
> snprintf series and then re-applying another snprintf series without
> the regression in bpf_trace_printk that mangles some argument types ?
> (bpf_seq_printf has always been like that so no regression there)

Pls send it as a follow up.
Along with another patch to clean verifier bits we discussed.
The merge window is approaching, so it has to be done asap.