From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-178.mta0.migadu.com (out-178.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A930390C95 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2026 13:24:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.178 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776173089; cv=none; b=MhKSCbfEHnIBnOyOh0CJkuWXzgYILw7Czr+hJC+KRH/Sr7L+tRGHhFiV1JCEK9YfmS+cuZ8WmK2X8N0gbTg58FwrMquwpBNbGN2kvOV9shXuZHhoaZMK+MwJgdE+MlehDDSl38ioen8Bu0ZTv97UangjiHJURpjetNbdl1maV60= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776173089; c=relaxed/simple; bh=J5UuqnaqMOg0RdgbdM9QCR3iga94S3H8EXMyzohGF/A=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version; b=P/s5EvtP2jdldr02NrCX53Gj7R9Cemc/tX4EExPzqbKLcWI02vno63fFkztsy5mamCWHKBRa5aEEz+FfQoDISmvixonT8HBif9GTT4bMUFGPx8/fOJ4wgAqbVNs/IRu5A46bHsWpt3xzyVGz++oYpZF9HOxQjtMy5ze882sNunw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=Ry9F1PFd; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.178 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="Ry9F1PFd" X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1776173085; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=JwLTXTyD6gPm2aBMp4KvteJRra9zdHqp9AqFQY5rVBU=; b=Ry9F1PFdoMDtZZwVxX2GX6cWjdMrWQLwAVhcTuORWbQIi5Ejxv9JgmiTrbqOrawHVqmhS4 dzJl5kYc1gbULQezvNY8xJTTxZ3iRXrWMVAJlD0oyOCSjAyLAkOKWCTrbQ5jDlyOiH793N HMTw8EIO6SsN/uUK+VFEVG1drZk44qo= From: Leon Hwang To: bpf@vger.kernel.org Cc: ast@kernel.org, andrii@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, yonghong.song@linux.dev, song@kernel.org, eddyz87@gmail.com, qmo@kernel.org, dxu@dxuuu.xyz, leon.hwang@linux.dev, kernel-patches-bot@fb.com Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v4 1/8] bpf: Drop duplicate blank lines in verifier Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2026 21:24:13 +0800 Message-ID: <20260414132421.63409-2-leon.hwang@linux.dev> In-Reply-To: <20260414132421.63409-1-leon.hwang@linux.dev> References: <20260414132421.63409-1-leon.hwang@linux.dev> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT There are many adjacent blank lines in the verifier that have accumulated over time. Drop them for cleanup. No functional changes intended. Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 18 ------------------ 1 file changed, 18 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 9e4980128151..1757c5720503 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -513,7 +513,6 @@ static bool helper_multiple_ref_obj_use(enum bpf_func_id func_id, return ref_obj_uses > 1; } - static bool is_spi_bounds_valid(struct bpf_func_state *state, int spi, int nr_slots) { int allocated_slots = state->allocated_stack / BPF_REG_SIZE; @@ -619,7 +618,6 @@ static void __mark_dynptr_reg(struct bpf_reg_state *reg, enum bpf_dynptr_type type, bool first_slot, int dynptr_id); - static void mark_dynptr_stack_regs(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_reg_state *sreg1, struct bpf_reg_state *sreg2, @@ -1655,7 +1653,6 @@ static bool same_callsites(struct bpf_verifier_state *a, struct bpf_verifier_sta return true; } - void bpf_free_backedges(struct bpf_scc_visit *visit) { struct bpf_scc_backedge *backedge, *next; @@ -2625,7 +2622,6 @@ static struct bpf_verifier_state *push_async_cb(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, return &elem->st; } - static int cmp_subprogs(const void *a, const void *b) { return ((struct bpf_subprog_info *)a)->start - @@ -3679,7 +3675,6 @@ static bool is_spillable_regtype(enum bpf_reg_type type) } } - /* check if register is a constant scalar value */ static bool is_reg_const(struct bpf_reg_state *reg, bool subreg32) { @@ -4347,7 +4342,6 @@ static int check_stack_read(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, return err; } - /* check_stack_write dispatches to check_stack_write_fixed_off or * check_stack_write_var_off. * @@ -5033,7 +5027,6 @@ static int check_sock_access(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx, valid = false; } - if (valid) { env->insn_aux_data[insn_idx].ctx_field_size = info.ctx_field_size; @@ -6836,7 +6829,6 @@ static int check_stack_range_initialized( if (err) return err; - if (tnum_is_const(reg->var_off)) { min_off = max_off = reg->var_off.value + off; } else { @@ -7541,7 +7533,6 @@ static bool is_iter_new_kfunc(struct bpf_kfunc_call_arg_meta *meta) return meta->kfunc_flags & KF_ITER_NEW; } - static bool is_iter_destroy_kfunc(struct bpf_kfunc_call_arg_meta *meta) { return meta->kfunc_flags & KF_ITER_DESTROY; @@ -10459,7 +10450,6 @@ static int check_helper_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn if (!reg) return -EFAULT; - if (meta.dynptr_id) { verifier_bug(env, "meta.dynptr_id already set"); return -EFAULT; @@ -10798,7 +10788,6 @@ static bool is_kfunc_release(struct bpf_kfunc_call_arg_meta *meta) return meta->kfunc_flags & KF_RELEASE; } - static bool is_kfunc_destructive(struct bpf_kfunc_call_arg_meta *meta) { return meta->kfunc_flags & KF_DESTRUCTIVE; @@ -11571,7 +11560,6 @@ static int process_irq_flag(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno, return 0; } - static int ref_set_non_owning(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_reg_state *reg) { struct btf_record *rec = reg_btf_record(reg); @@ -16715,7 +16703,6 @@ static int check_ld_abs(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn) return 0; } - static bool return_retval_range(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_retval_range *range) { enum bpf_prog_type prog_type = resolve_prog_type(env->prog); @@ -18587,8 +18574,6 @@ static void release_insn_arrays(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) bpf_insn_array_release(env->insn_array_maps[i]); } - - /* The verifier does more data flow analysis than llvm and will not * explore branches that are dead at run time. Malicious programs can * have dead code too. Therefore replace all dead at-run-time code @@ -18616,8 +18601,6 @@ static void sanitize_dead_code(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) } } - - static void free_states(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) { struct bpf_verifier_state_list *sl; @@ -18880,7 +18863,6 @@ static int do_check_main(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) return ret; } - static void print_verification_stats(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) { int i; -- 2.53.0