Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/3] bpf: Perform necessary sign/zero extension for kfunc return values

[patchwork-bot+netdevbpf@kernel.org]

Hello:

This series was applied to bpf/bpf-next.git (master)
by Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>:

On Sun, 7 Aug 2022 10:51:11 -0700 you wrote:
> Tejun reported a bpf program kfunc return value mis-handling which
> may cause incorrect result. If the kfunc return value is boolean
> or u8, the bpf program produce incorrect results.
> 
> The main reason is due to mismatch of return value expectation between
> native architecture and bpf. For example, for x86_64, if a kfunc
> returns a u8, the kfunc returns 64-bit %rax, the top 56 bits might
> be garbage. This is okay if the caller is x86_64 as the caller can
> use special instruction to access lower 8-bit register %al. But this
> will cause a problem for bpf program since bpf program assumes
> the whole r0 register should contain correct value.
> This patch set fixed the issue by doing necessary zero/sign extension
> for the kfunc return value to meet bpf requirement.
> 
> [...]

Here is the summary with links:
  - [bpf-next,1/3] bpf: Always return corresponding btf_type in __get_type_size()
    https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf-next/c/a00ed8430199
  - [bpf-next,2/3] bpf: Perform necessary sign/zero extension for kfunc return values
    (no matching commit)
  - [bpf-next,3/3] selftests/bpf: Add tests with u8/s16 kfunc return types
    (no matching commit)

You are awesome, thank you!
-- 
Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot.
https://korg.docs.kernel.org/patchwork/pwbot.html