(no subject)

[Gaurav Singh]

Please find the patch below.

Thanks and regards,
Gaurav.

From Gaurav Singh <gaurav1086@gmail.com> # This line is ignored.
From: Gaurav Singh <gaurav1086@gmail.com>
Reply-To: 
Subject: 
In-Reply-To: 

[PATCH] bpf: alloc_record_per_cpu Add null check after malloc

[Gaurav Singh]

Signed-off-by: Gaurav Singh <gaurav1086@gmail.com>
---
 samples/bpf/xdp_rxq_info_user.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/samples/bpf/xdp_rxq_info_user.c b/samples/bpf/xdp_rxq_info_user.c
index 4fe47502ebed..490b07b7df78 100644
--- a/samples/bpf/xdp_rxq_info_user.c
+++ b/samples/bpf/xdp_rxq_info_user.c
@@ -202,11 +202,11 @@ static struct datarec *alloc_record_per_cpu(void)
 
 	size = sizeof(struct datarec) * nr_cpus;
 	array = malloc(size);
-	memset(array, 0, size);
 	if (!array) {
 		fprintf(stderr, "Mem alloc error (nr_cpus:%u)\n", nr_cpus);
 		exit(EXIT_FAIL_MEM);
 	}
+	memset(array, 0, size);
 	return array;
 }
 
-- 
2.17.1

Re: [PATCH] bpf: alloc_record_per_cpu Add null check after malloc

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 07:38:39AM -0400, Gaurav Singh wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Gaurav Singh <gaurav1086@gmail.com>
> ---
>  samples/bpf/xdp_rxq_info_user.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

I know I don't take patches without any changelog text, maybe other
maintainers are more lax...

Re: your mail

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 07:38:38AM -0400, Gaurav Singh wrote:
> Please find the patch below.
> 
> Thanks and regards,
> Gaurav.
> 
> >From Gaurav Singh <gaurav1086@gmail.com> # This line is ignored.
> From: Gaurav Singh <gaurav1086@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: 
> Subject: 
> In-Reply-To: 
> 
> 

I think something went wrong in your submission, just use 'git
send-email' to send the patch out.

thanks,

greg k-h

(no subject)

[Totoro W]

Hi folks,

This is my first time to ask questions in this mailing list. I'm the
author of https://github.com/tw4452852/zbpf which is a framework to
write BPF programs with Zig toolchain.
During the development, as the BTF is totally generated by the Zig
toolchain, some naming conventions will make the BTF verifier refuse
to load.
Right now I have to patch the libbpf to do some fixup before loading
into the kernel
(https://github.com/tw4452852/libbpf_zig/blob/main/0001-temporary-WA-for-invalid-BTF-info-generated-by-Zig.patch).
Even though this just work-around the issue, I'm still curious about
the current naming sanitation, I want to know some background about
it.
If possible, could we relax this to accept more languages (like Zig)
to write BPF programs? Thanks in advance.

Regards.

Re: your mail

[Shung-Hsi Yu]

On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 02:11:18PM GMT, Totoro W wrote:
> Hi folks,

Don't have answer to your question, but noticed that your email was sent
without a subject.

This looks like a worthwhile question, so perhaps consider resending?
Without a subject this might be easily dismissed by the maintainers.

Shung-Hsi

> This is my first time to ask questions in this mailing list. I'm the
> author of https://github.com/tw4452852/zbpf which is a framework to
> write BPF programs with Zig toolchain.
> During the development, as the BTF is totally generated by the Zig
> toolchain, some naming conventions will make the BTF verifier refuse
> to load.
> Right now I have to patch the libbpf to do some fixup before loading
> into the kernel
> (https://github.com/tw4452852/libbpf_zig/blob/main/0001-temporary-WA-for-invalid-BTF-info-generated-by-Zig.patch).
> Even though this just work-around the issue, I'm still curious about
> the current naming sanitation, I want to know some background about
> it.
> If possible, could we relax this to accept more languages (like Zig)
> to write BPF programs? Thanks in advance.
> 
> Regards.