From: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
To: Kui-Feng Lee <sinquersw@gmail.com>,
Kui-Feng Lee <thinker.li@gmail.com>,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, martin.lau@linux.dev,
song@kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com, andrii@kernel.org
Cc: kuifeng@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 3/7] bpf: create repeated fields for arrays.
Date: Fri, 03 May 2024 11:10:44 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <30444d73030ade8610674428dce0e0978e537768.camel@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0fba228d-ee81-4aee-901f-c60dfd53c102@gmail.com>
On Fri, 2024-05-03 at 11:02 -0700, Kui-Feng Lee wrote:
[...]
> > > @@ -3624,9 +3690,14 @@ static int btf_find_datasec_var(const struct btf *btf, const struct btf_type *t,
> > >
> > > if (ret == BTF_FIELD_IGNORE)
> > > continue;
> > > - if (idx >= info_cnt)
> > > + if (idx + nelems > info_cnt)
> > > return -E2BIG;
> >
> > Nit: This is bounded by BTF_FIELDS_MAX which has value of 11,
> > would that be enough?
>
> So far, no one has complained it yet!
> But, some one will reach the limit in future.
> If people want a flexible length, I will solve it in a follow-up.
> WDYT?
Sure, follow-up works.
Just that 11 is not much for an array.
I think sched_ext is the only user for this feature at the moment,
so you are in the best position to judge which size is appropriate.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-05-03 18:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-05-01 20:47 [PATCH bpf-next v3 0/7] Enable BPF programs to declare arrays of kptr, bpf_rb_root, and bpf_list_head Kui-Feng Lee
2024-05-01 20:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/7] bpf: Remove unnecessary checks on the offset of btf_field Kui-Feng Lee
2024-05-01 20:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 2/7] bpf: Remove unnecessary call to btf_field_type_size() Kui-Feng Lee
2024-05-01 20:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 3/7] bpf: create repeated fields for arrays Kui-Feng Lee
2024-05-02 17:20 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-05-03 18:02 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2024-05-03 18:10 ` Eduard Zingerman [this message]
2024-05-01 20:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 4/7] bpf: look into the types of the fields of a struct type recursively Kui-Feng Lee
2024-05-02 19:34 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-05-03 18:07 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2024-05-01 20:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 5/7] selftests/bpf: Test kptr arrays and kptrs in nested struct fields Kui-Feng Lee
2024-05-01 20:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 6/7] selftests/bpf: Test global bpf_rb_root arrays and fields in nested struct types Kui-Feng Lee
2024-05-01 20:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 7/7] selftests/bpf: Test global bpf_list_head arrays Kui-Feng Lee
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=30444d73030ade8610674428dce0e0978e537768.camel@gmail.com \
--to=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=kuifeng@meta.com \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=sinquersw@gmail.com \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=thinker.li@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).