+82
−0
Loading
Merge branch 'btf-check-name'
Yonghong Song says: ==================== This patch set added name checking for PTR, ARRAY, VOLATILE, TYPEDEF, CONST, RESTRICT, STRUCT, UNION, ENUM and FWD types. Such a strict name checking makes BTF more sound in the kernel and future BTF-to-header-file converesion ([1]) less fragile. Patch #1 implemented btf_name_valid_identifier() for name checking which will be used in Patch #2. Patch #2 checked name validity for the above mentioned types. Patch #3 fixed two existing test_btf unit tests exposed by the strict name checking. Patch #4 added additional test cases. This patch set is against bpf tree. Patch #1 has been implemented in bpf-next commit Commit 2667a262 ("bpf: btf: Add BTF_KIND_FUNC and BTF_KIND_FUNC_PROTO"), so there is no need to apply this patch to bpf-next. In case this patch is applied to bpf-next, there will be a minor conflict like diff --cc kernel/bpf/btf.c index a09b2f94ab25,93c233ab2db6..000000000000 --- a/kernel/bpf/btf.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/btf.c @@@ -474,7 -451,7 +474,11 @@@ static bool btf_name_valid_identifier(c return !*src; } ++<<<<<<< HEAD +const char *btf_name_by_offset(const struct btf *btf, u32 offset) ++======= + static const char *btf_name_by_offset(const struct btf *btf, u32 offset) ++>>>>>>> fa9566b0847d... bpf: btf: implement btf_name_valid_identifier() { if (!offset) return "(anon)"; Just resolve the conflict by taking the "const char ..." line. Patches #2, #3 and #4 can be applied to bpf-next without conflict. [1]: http://vger.kernel.org/lpc-bpf2018.html#session-2 ==================== Signed-off-by:Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>