Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1 04/10] resolve_btfids: Support for KF_IMPLICIT_ARGS

[Ihor Solodrai <ihor.solodrai@linux.dev>]

On 1/9/26 11:15 AM, bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org wrote:
>> diff --git a/tools/bpf/resolve_btfids/main.c b/tools/bpf/resolve_btfids/main.c
>> index df39982f51df..b361e726fa36 100644
>> --- a/tools/bpf/resolve_btfids/main.c
>> +++ b/tools/bpf/resolve_btfids/main.c
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
>> +static s64 btf__collect_decl_tags(const struct btf *btf, s32 *decl_tags, u32 decl_tags_sz)
>> +{
>> +	const u32 type_cnt = btf__type_cnt(btf);
>> +	const struct btf_type *t;
>> +	s64 nr_decl_tags = 0;
>> +
>> +	for (u32 id = 1; id < type_cnt; id++) {
>> +		t = btf__type_by_id(btf, id);
>> +		if (!btf_is_decl_tag(t))
>> +			continue;
>> +		if (nr_decl_tags >= decl_tags_sz) {
>> +			pr_err("ERROR: resolve_btfids: too many decl tags in BTF - limit %s\n",
>> +				decl_tags_sz);
>                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Should this be %u instead of %s? The decl_tags_sz parameter is a u32, but
> the format specifier %s expects a string pointer. When the error path is
> triggered (more than MAX_DECL_TAGS decl tags in BTF), this will cause
> undefined behavior as printf tries to interpret the integer value as a
> memory address to read a string from.

Correct, it should be %u or %d.

> 
>> +			return -E2BIG;
>> +		}
>> +		decl_tags[nr_decl_tags++] = id;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	return nr_decl_tags;
>> +}
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> 
> ---
> 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/20862592244