Commit 2cd00852 authored by Pu Lehui's avatar Pu Lehui Committed by Andrii Nakryiko

bpf: Unify data extension operation of jited_ksyms and jited_linfo

We found that 32-bit environment can not print BPF line info due to a data
inconsistency between jited_ksyms[0] and jited_linfo[0].

For example:

  jited_kyms[0] = 0xb800067c, jited_linfo[0] = 0xffffffffb800067c

We know that both of them store BPF func address, but due to the different
data extension operations when extended to u64, they may not be the same.
We need to unify the data extension operations of them.
Signed-off-by: default avatarPu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarDaniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Signed-off-by: default avatarAndrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAEf4BzZ-eDcdJZgJ+Np7Y=V-TVjDDvOMqPwzKjyWrh=i5juv4w@mail.gmail.com
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220530092815.1112406-2-pulehui@huawei.com
parent 21f1481a
......@@ -4090,14 +4090,15 @@ static int bpf_prog_get_info_by_fd(struct file *file,
info.nr_jited_line_info = 0;
if (info.nr_jited_line_info && ulen) {
if (bpf_dump_raw_ok(file->f_cred)) {
unsigned long line_addr;
__u64 __user *user_linfo;
u32 i;
user_linfo = u64_to_user_ptr(info.jited_line_info);
ulen = min_t(u32, info.nr_jited_line_info, ulen);
for (i = 0; i < ulen; i++) {
if (put_user((__u64)(long)prog->aux->jited_linfo[i],
&user_linfo[i]))
line_addr = (unsigned long)prog->aux->jited_linfo[i];
if (put_user((__u64)line_addr, &user_linfo[i]))
return -EFAULT;
}
} else {
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment