Re: [PATCH RFC bpf-next 5/7] bpf: introduce bpf_arch_text_poke_type

[bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2072 bytes --]

> diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
> index 8fb8c9bbd..975930e10 100644
> --- a/include/linux/bpf.h
> +++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
> @@ -3712,6 +3712,10 @@ enum bpf_text_poke_type {
>  	BPF_MOD_JUMP,
>  };
>
> +int bpf_arch_text_poke_type(void *ip, enum bpf_text_poke_type old_t,
> +			    enum bpf_text_poke_type new_t, void *addr1,
> +			    void *addr2);
                                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^

The header declaration uses parameter names addr1 and addr2, but the
implementation in kernel/bpf/core.c uses old_addr and new_addr. Should
these match? When developers implement arch-specific versions, they'll
see addr1/addr2 in the header but old_addr/new_addr in the weak default
implementation. The existing bpf_arch_text_poke() uses addr1/addr2, but
the x86 implementation of that function semantically treats them as
old_addr and new_addr. Would it be clearer to use old_addr/new_addr
consistently, or addr1/addr2 to match the existing function?

> +
>  int bpf_arch_text_poke(void *ip, enum bpf_text_poke_type t,
>  		       void *addr1, void *addr2);
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c
> index ef4448f18..400eb70fd 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c
> @@ -3156,6 +3156,16 @@ int __weak bpf_arch_text_poke(void *ip, enum bpf_text_poke_type t,
>  	return -ENOTSUPP;
>  }
>
> +int __weak bpf_arch_text_poke_type(void *ip, enum bpf_text_poke_type old_t,
> +				   enum bpf_text_poke_type new_t, void *old_addr,
> +				   void *new_addr)
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> +{
> +	if (old_t == new_t)
> +		return bpf_arch_text_poke(ip, old_t, old_addr, new_addr);
> +
> +	return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +}
> +
>  void * __weak bpf_arch_text_copy(void *dst, void *src, size_t len)
>  {
>  	return ERR_PTR(-ENOTSUPP);


---
AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug.
See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md

CI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/19360353328