From: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org
Cc: andrii@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, martin.lau@linux.dev,
kernel-team@fb.com, yonghong.song@linux.dev, void@manifault.com,
sinquersw@gmail.com, Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v2 14/15] bpf: allow '?' at the beginning of DATASEC names
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2024 03:19:19 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240302011920.15302-15-eddyz87@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240302011920.15302-1-eddyz87@gmail.com>
Currently kernel does not allow question marks in BTF names.
This commit makes an exception, allowing first character of the
DATASEC name to be a question mark.
The intent is to allow libbpf to use SEC("?.struct_ops") to identify
struct_ops maps that are optional, e.g. like in the following BPF code:
SEC("?.struct_ops")
struct test_ops optional_map = { ... };
Which yields the following BTF:
...
[13] DATASEC '?.struct_ops' size=0 vlen=...
...
To load such BTF libbpf rewrites DATASEC name before load.
After this patch the rewrite won't be necessary.
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
---
kernel/bpf/btf.c | 17 +++++++++--------
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/btf.c b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
index 6ff0bd1a91d5..a25fb6bce808 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/btf.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
@@ -761,12 +761,13 @@ static bool btf_name_offset_valid(const struct btf *btf, u32 offset)
return offset < btf->hdr.str_len;
}
-static bool __btf_name_char_ok(char c, bool first)
+static bool __btf_name_char_ok(char c, bool first, bool allow_qmark)
{
if ((first ? !isalpha(c) :
!isalnum(c)) &&
c != '_' &&
- c != '.')
+ c != '.' &&
+ (allow_qmark && first ? c != '?' : true))
return false;
return true;
}
@@ -783,20 +784,20 @@ static const char *btf_str_by_offset(const struct btf *btf, u32 offset)
return NULL;
}
-static bool __btf_name_valid(const struct btf *btf, u32 offset)
+static bool __btf_name_valid(const struct btf *btf, u32 offset, bool allow_qmark)
{
/* offset must be valid */
const char *src = btf_str_by_offset(btf, offset);
const char *src_limit;
- if (!__btf_name_char_ok(*src, true))
+ if (!__btf_name_char_ok(*src, true, allow_qmark))
return false;
/* set a limit on identifier length */
src_limit = src + KSYM_NAME_LEN;
src++;
while (*src && src < src_limit) {
- if (!__btf_name_char_ok(*src, false))
+ if (!__btf_name_char_ok(*src, false, false))
return false;
src++;
}
@@ -806,12 +807,12 @@ static bool __btf_name_valid(const struct btf *btf, u32 offset)
static bool btf_name_valid_identifier(const struct btf *btf, u32 offset)
{
- return __btf_name_valid(btf, offset);
+ return __btf_name_valid(btf, offset, false);
}
static bool btf_name_valid_section(const struct btf *btf, u32 offset)
{
- return __btf_name_valid(btf, offset);
+ return __btf_name_valid(btf, offset, true);
}
static const char *__btf_name_by_offset(const struct btf *btf, u32 offset)
@@ -4481,7 +4482,7 @@ static s32 btf_var_check_meta(struct btf_verifier_env *env,
}
if (!t->name_off ||
- !__btf_name_valid(env->btf, t->name_off)) {
+ !btf_name_valid_identifier(env->btf, t->name_off)) {
btf_verifier_log_type(env, t, "Invalid name");
return -EINVAL;
}
--
2.43.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-02 1:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-02 1:19 [PATCH bpf-next v2 00/15] libbpf: type suffixes and autocreate flag for struct_ops maps Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 01/15] libbpf: allow version suffixes (___smth) for struct_ops types Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 02/15] libbpf: tie struct_ops programs to kernel BTF ids, not to local ids Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 03/15] libbpf: honor autocreate flag for struct_ops maps Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 04/15] selftests/bpf: test struct_ops map definition with type suffix Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 05/15] selftests/bpf: utility functions to capture libbpf log in test_progs Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 06/15] selftests/bpf: bad_struct_ops test Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 07/15] selftests/bpf: test autocreate behavior for struct_ops maps Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 08/15] libbpf: sync progs autoload with maps autocreate " Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-04 19:13 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 09/15] selftests/bpf: verify struct_ops autoload/autocreate sync Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 10/15] libbpf: replace elf_state->st_ops_* fields with SEC_ST_OPS sec_type Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 11/15] libbpf: struct_ops in SEC("?.struct_ops") and SEC("?.struct_ops.link") Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 12/15] libbpf: rewrite btf datasec names starting from '?' Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 13/15] selftests/bpf: test case for SEC("?.struct_ops") Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` Eduard Zingerman [this message]
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 15/15] selftests/bpf: test cases for '?' in BTF names Eduard Zingerman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20240302011920.15302-15-eddyz87@gmail.com \
--to=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=sinquersw@gmail.com \
--cc=void@manifault.com \
--cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox