Re: [PATCH] net: bpf: add static in net/core/filter.c

[Ben Dooks]

On 16/10/2019 13:26, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 12:04:46PM +0100, Ben Dooks (Codethink) wrote:
> > There are a number of structs in net/core/filter.c
> > that are not exported or declared outside of the
> > file. Fix the following warnings by making these
> > all static:
> >
> > net/core/filter.c:8465:31: warning: symbol 'sk_filter_verifier_ops' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > net/core/filter.c:8472:27: warning: symbol 'sk_filter_prog_ops' was not declared. Should it be static?
> [...]
> > net/core/filter.c:8935:27: warning: symbol 'sk_reuseport_prog_ops' was not declared. Should it be static?
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@xxxxxx>
> > Cc: Song Liu <songliubraving@xxxxxx>
> > Cc: Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx>
> > Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: bpf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > ---
> >   net/core/filter.c | 60 +++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------
> >   1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c
> > index ed6563622ce3..f7338fee41f8 100644
> > --- a/net/core/filter.c
> > +++ b/net/core/filter.c
> > @@ -8462,18 +8462,18 @@ static u32 sk_msg_convert_ctx_access(enum bpf_access_type type,
> >   	return insn - insn_buf;
> >   }
> >   
> > -const struct bpf_verifier_ops sk_filter_verifier_ops = {
> > +static const struct bpf_verifier_ops sk_filter_verifier_ops = {
> >   	.get_func_proto		= sk_filter_func_proto,
> >   	.is_valid_access	= sk_filter_is_valid_access,
> >   	.convert_ctx_access	= bpf_convert_ctx_access,
> >   	.gen_ld_abs		= bpf_gen_ld_abs,
> >   };
>
> Big obvious NAK. I'm puzzled that you try to fix a compile warning, but without
> even bothering to compile the result after your patch ...

builds fine. maybe some effort to stop this happening again should be made.

> Seen BPF_PROG_TYPE() ?




--
Ben Dooks				http://www.codethink.co.uk/
Senior Engineer				Codethink - Providing Genius

https://www.codethink.co.uk/privacy.html