Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1 3/4] resolve_btfids: introduce enum btf_id_kind
From: Ihor Solodrai
Date: Wed Nov 26 2025 - 14:08:16 EST
On 11/25/25 6:09 PM, bot+bpf-ci@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> diff --git a/tools/bpf/resolve_btfids/main.c b/tools/bpf/resolve_btfids/main.c
>> index b7b44e72e..7f5a9f7dd 100644
>> --- a/tools/bpf/resolve_btfids/main.c
>> +++ b/tools/bpf/resolve_btfids/main.c
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> @@ -260,26 +266,33 @@ static char *get_id(const char *prefix_end)
>> return id;
>> }
>>
>> -static struct btf_id *add_set(struct object *obj, char *name, bool is_set8)
>> +static struct btf_id *add_set(struct object *obj, char *name, enum btf_id_kind kind)
>> {
>> /*
>> * __BTF_ID__set__name
>> * name = ^
>> * id = ^
>> */
>> - char *id = name + (is_set8 ? sizeof(BTF_SET8 "__") : sizeof(BTF_SET "__")) - 1;
>> + int prefixlen = kind == BTF_ID_KIND_SET8 ? sizeof(BTF_SET8 "__") : sizeof(BTF_SET "__");
>> + char *id = name + prefixlen - 1;
>> int len = strlen(name);
>> + struct btf_id *btf_id;
>>
>> if (id >= name + len) {
>> pr_err("FAILED to parse set name: %s\n", name);
>> return NULL;
>> }
>>
>> - return btf_id__add(&obj->sets, id, true);
>> + btf_id = btf_id__add(&obj->sets, id, true);
>> + if (btf_id)
>> + btf_id->kind = kind;
>> +
>> + return btf_id;
>> }
>>
>> static struct btf_id *add_symbol(struct rb_root *root, char *name, size_t size)
>> {
>> + struct btf_id *btf_id;
>> char *id;
>>
>> id = get_id(name + size);
>> @@ -288,7 +301,10 @@ static struct btf_id *add_symbol(struct rb_root *root, char *name, size_t size)
>> return NULL;
>> }
>>
>> - return btf_id__add(root, id, false);
>> + btf_id = btf_id__add(root, id, false);
>> + btf_id->kind = BTF_ID_KIND_SYM;
> ^^^^
>
> Can add_symbol() dereference a NULL pointer here? The function
> btf_id__add() can return NULL on allocation failure (when zalloc fails),
> but the new code sets btf_id->kind before checking if btf_id is NULL.
>
> In contrast, add_set() checks for NULL before setting the kind field.
> Should add_symbol() do the same?
We pass unique=false to btf_id__add() and that means that it can only
return NULL if zalloc() fails, which is unlikely.
Checking for NULL here is little too defensive, but won't hurt.
>
>> +
>> + return btf_id;
>> }
>
> [ ... ]
>
>
> ---
> 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/19689674924