From 2cd008522707a59bf38c1f45d5c654eddbb86c20 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Pu Lehui Date: Mon, 30 May 2022 17:28:10 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] 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: Pu Lehui Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko 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 --- kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c index 2b69306d3c6e..aeb31137b2ed 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c @@ -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 { -- 2.49.0