Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/5] bpf: dispatcher: allocate bpf_dispatcher->rw_image with vzalloc()

["Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi" <memxor@gmail.com>]

On Thu Jul 16, 2026 at 11:27 AM CEST, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 08:52:25AM +0000, bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org wrote:
>> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/dispatcher.c b/kernel/bpf/dispatcher.c
>> > index ea2d60dc1fee..79f0c222c583 100644
>> > --- a/kernel/bpf/dispatcher.c
>> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/dispatcher.c
>> > @@ -148,7 +148,10 @@ void bpf_dispatcher_change_prog(struct bpf_dispatcher *d, struct bpf_prog *from,
>> >  		d->image = bpf_prog_pack_alloc(PAGE_SIZE, bpf_jit_fill_hole_with_zero, false);
>> >  		if (!d->image)
>> >  			goto out;
>> > -		d->rw_image = bpf_jit_alloc_exec(PAGE_SIZE);
>> > +		/* d->rw_image doesn't need to be in module memory range, so we
>> > +		 * can use vzalloc.
>> > +		 */
>> > +		d->rw_image = vzalloc(PAGE_SIZE);
>>
>> This isn't a bug, but for multi-line comments under kernel/bpf/ the opening
>> /* is expected to sit on its own line, so would this read better as:
>>
>> 	/*
>> 	 * d->rw_image doesn't need to be in module memory range, so we
>> 	 * can use vzalloc.
>> 	 */
>
> This really contradicts what I see in the code :/
>

We ended up changing to the multi-line convention, but you can let it be. People
are out on vacation, hence things are moving slow, but I plan to get to this
series soon. Sorry about the delay.

>> >  		if (!d->rw_image) {
>> >  			bpf_prog_pack_free(d->image, PAGE_SIZE);
>> >  			d->image = NULL;
>>
>>
>> ---
>> AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug.
>> See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md
>>
>> CI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/29482648692