Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
        Song Liu <song@kernel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>,
        Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
        "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>,
        Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>,
        Delyan Kratunov <delyank@fb.com>,
        Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>,
        Menglong Dong <imagedong@tencent.com>,
        Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] bpf: add bpf_probe_read_kernel declaration
Date:   Wed, 17 May 2023 14:56:09 +0200
Message-Id: <20230517125617.931437-2-arnd@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20230517125617.931437-1-arnd@kernel.org>
References: <20230517125617.931437-1-arnd@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>

bpf_probe_read_kernel() has a __weak definition in core.c and another
definition with an incompatible prototype in kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c,
when CONFIG_BPF_EVENTS is enabled.

Since the two are incompatible, there cannot be a shared declaration
in a header file, but the lack of a prototype causes a W=1 warning:

kernel/bpf/core.c:1638:12: error: no previous prototype for 'bpf_probe_read_kernel' [-Werror=missing-prototypes]

Add a prototype directly in front of the function instead to shut
up the warning. Also, to avoid having an incompatible function override
the __weak definition, use an #ifdef to ensure that only one of the
two is ever defined.

I'm not sure what can be done to make the two prototypes match.

Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
---
 kernel/bpf/core.c | 5 ++++-
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c
index 6f5ede31e471..38762a784b86 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/core.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c
@@ -1635,11 +1635,14 @@ bool bpf_opcode_in_insntable(u8 code)
 }
 
 #ifndef CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON
-u64 __weak bpf_probe_read_kernel(void *dst, u32 size, const void *unsafe_ptr)
+u64 bpf_probe_read_kernel(void *dst, u32 size, const void *unsafe_ptr);
+#ifndef CONFIG_BPF_EVENTS
+u64 bpf_probe_read_kernel(void *dst, u32 size, const void *unsafe_ptr)
 {
 	memset(dst, 0, size);
 	return -EFAULT;
 }
+#endif
 
 /**
  *	___bpf_prog_run - run eBPF program on a given context
-- 
2.39.2