From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Borkmann Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next] bpf: fix potential percpu map overcopy to user. Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 21:39:49 +0200 Message-ID: <58091D85.9060701@iogearbox.net> References: <1476636088-9268-1-git-send-email-u9012063@gmail.com> <20161019005004.GA87961@ast-mbp.thefacebook.com> <58078E1D.6080108@iogearbox.net> <5808EB16.4000103@iogearbox.net> <20161020165807.GB97796@ast-mbp.thefacebook.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Linux Kernel Network Developers To: William Tu , Alexei Starovoitov Return-path: Received: from www62.your-server.de ([213.133.104.62]:47820 "EHLO www62.your-server.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756485AbcJTTjw (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Oct 2016 15:39:52 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 10/20/2016 08:41 PM, William Tu wrote: > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Alexei Starovoitov > wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 06:04:38PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote: >>> >>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_maps.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_maps.c >>> index ee384f0..d4832e8 100644 >>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_maps.c >>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_maps.c >>> @@ -25,6 +25,33 @@ >>> >>> static int map_flags; >>> >>> +static unsigned int num_possible_cpus(void) >>> +{ >>> + static const char *fcpu = "/sys/devices/system/cpu/possible"; >>> + unsigned int val, possible_cpus = 0; >>> + char buff[128]; >>> + FILE *fp; >>> + >>> + fp = fopen(fcpu, "r"); >>> + if (!fp) { >>> + printf("Failed to open %s: '%s'!\n", fcpu, strerror(errno)); >>> + exit(1); >>> + } >>> + >>> + while (fgets(buff, sizeof(buff), fp)) { >>> + if (sscanf(buff, "%*u-%u", &val) == 1) >>> + possible_cpus = val; >>> + } >> >> looks great to me. >> Could you move it into bpf_sys.h or somehow make it common in libbpf >> and reuse it in samples/bpf/ ? >> Since quite a few samples need this fix as well. Ahh, true. >> Thanks! > > Looks good to me. I tested it and it works fine. Okay, thanks. I'll fix that up, mid-term we should try and move most of that over to kernel selftests/bpf, and reuse tools/lib/bpf/. > Thanks! > William