Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-112876-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240322-hid-bpf-sleepable-v5-0-179c7b59eaaa@kernel.org>
 <20240322-hid-bpf-sleepable-v5-2-179c7b59eaaa@kernel.org> <CAP01T76oYpkNdgxXo+6v53afjObvYU4LWRLfkg2S7pNivzaEvg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAADnVQL_mQgN8uKsNFR0FBtWoaweCkzXw03EvbnQ-iFVWvXxuw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP01T753_FjFdj1CbCX5Bh1itYUWf8DUh41F7R_7Fdb=2SEL8g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAADnVQ+5mSEW-LJwS30hED1cJeHOhqfCTKdBzYCcRd8EiVNvtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAP01T757ddmmFR+Cnj70DrTLFcEu+9uAcbscrO-uOmSVGB8eJA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP01T757ddmmFR+Cnj70DrTLFcEu+9uAcbscrO-uOmSVGB8eJA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2024 15:13:08 -0700
Message-ID: <CAADnVQK=aAcNt-8BBJNnp3QGkxVWLYhZ9=9dizo-7eQosjNtow@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 2/6] bpf/verifier: add bpf_timer as a kfunc
 capable type
To: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Cc: Benjamin Tissoires <bentiss@kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>, 
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>, 
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>, Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>, Song Liu <song@kernel.org>, 
	Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>, 
	KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>, 
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@fb.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, 
	bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, 
	"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 9:57=E2=80=AFPM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
<memxor@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > >
> > > > Observation is correct. The patch is buggy,
> > > > but the suggestion to follow process_dynptr_func() will lead
> > > > to unnecessary complexity.
> > > > dynptr-s are on stack with plenty of extra checks.
> > >
> > > The suggestion was to call process_timer_func, not process_dynptr_fun=
c.
> > >
> > > > In this case bpf_timer is in map_value.
> > > > Much simpler is to follow KF_ARG_PTR_TO_MAP approach.
> > >
> > > What I meant by the example was that dynptr handling does the same
> > > thing for kfuncs and helpers (using the same function), so timer
> > > arguments should do the same (i.e. use process_timer_func), which wil=
l
> > > do all checks for constant offset (ensuring var_off is tnum_is_const)
> > > and match it against btf_record->timer_off.
> >
> > I don't follow. Please elaborate with a patch.
> > The var_off and off is a part of the bug, but it's not the biggest part=
 of it.
>
> Not compile tested.

I see. All makes sense to me.

Benjamin,
pls incorporate it in your set.