Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 2/2] bpf: let bpf_warn_invalid_xdp_action() report more info

[Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>]

On 12/6/21 11:20 AM, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On Fri, 2021-12-03 at 23:04 +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> Hi Paolo,
>>
>> Changes look good to me as well, we can route the series via bpf-next after tree
>> resync, or alternatively ask David/Jakub to take it directly into net-next with our
>> Ack given in bpf-next there is no drivers/net/ethernet/microsoft/mana/mana_bpf.c yet.
>>
>> On 11/30/21 11:08 AM, Paolo Abeni wrote:
>> [...]> diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c
>>> index 5631acf3f10c..392838fa7652 100644
>>> --- a/net/core/filter.c
>>> +++ b/net/core/filter.c
>>> @@ -8181,13 +8181,13 @@ static bool xdp_is_valid_access(int off, int size,
>>>    	return __is_valid_xdp_access(off, size);
>>>    }
>>>    
>>> -void bpf_warn_invalid_xdp_action(u32 act)
>>> +void bpf_warn_invalid_xdp_action(struct net_device *dev, struct bpf_prog *prog, u32 act)
>>>    {
>>>    	const u32 act_max = XDP_REDIRECT;
>>>    
>>> -	pr_warn_once("%s XDP return value %u, expect packet loss!\n",
>>> +	pr_warn_once("%s XDP return value %u on prog %s (id %d) dev %s, expect packet loss!\n",
>>>    		     act > act_max ? "Illegal" : "Driver unsupported",
>>> -		     act);
>>> +		     act, prog->aux->name, prog->aux->id, dev ? dev->name : "");
>>
>> One tiny nit, but we could fix it up while applying I'd have is that for !dev case
>> we should probably dump a "<n/a>" or so just to avoid a kernel log message like
>> "dev , expect packet loss".
> 
> Yep, that would probably be better. Pleas let me know it you prefer a
> formal new version for the patch.

Ok, I think no need, we can take care of it when applying.

Thanks,
Daniel