Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/2] bpf: allow terminal gotox instructions

[Anton Protopopov <a.s.protopopov@gmail.com>]

On 26/08/31 11:26PM, bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org wrote:
> > bpf: allow terminal gotox instructions
> 
> This isn't a bug, but Anton Protopopov requested capitalizing "allow" in
> the commit title when he provided his Reviewed-by tag. Should this be
> "bpf: Allow terminal gotox instructions"?

+1

> 
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > index 8f585ceb2cd51..483473df7746c 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> > @@ -3107,7 +3109,8 @@ static int check_subprogs(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
> >  		if (i == subprog_end - 1) {
> >  			/* to avoid fall-through from one subprog into another
> >  			 * the last insn of the subprog should be either exit
> >  			 * or unconditional jump back or bpf_throw call
> >  			 */
> >  			if (code != (BPF_JMP | BPF_EXIT) &&
> >  			    code != (BPF_JMP32 | BPF_JA) &&
> > -			    code != (BPF_JMP | BPF_JA)) {
> > +			    code != (BPF_JMP | BPF_JA) &&
> > +			    !insn_is_gotox(&insn[i])) {
> 
> This isn't a bug, but would it be worth extending the comment above this
> condition to mention gotox, since the accepted-terminator list right
> below it now has a fourth entry?

I would ignore this, indirect jumps are unconditional as well

> 
> ---
> 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/33447655511