On 10/4/26 15:21, Leon Hwang wrote:
> On 10/4/26 14:10, Feng Yang wrote:
>> From: Feng Yang <[email protected]>
>>
>
> [...]
>
>> +
>> +static int check_attach_sleepable(u32 btf_id, unsigned long addr, const
>> char *func_name)
>> +{
>> + /* fentry/fexit/fmod_ret progs can be sleepable if they are
>> + * attached to ALLOW_ERROR_INJECTION and are not in denylist.
>> + */
>> + if (!check_non_sleepable_error_inject(btf_id) &&
>> + within_error_injection_list(addr))
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int check_attach_modify_return(unsigned long addr, const char
>> *func_name)
>> +{
>> + if (within_error_injection_list(addr) ||
>> + !strncmp(SECURITY_PREFIX, func_name, sizeof(SECURITY_PREFIX) - 1))
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +}
>
> Why did you move them here? Seems that you didn't use them.
>
>> +
>> +static int modify_return_get_retval_range(const struct bpf_prog *prog,
>> + struct bpf_retval_range *retval_range)
>
> NIT: code format issue here.
>
Sorry about this. It is false. I was misled by thunderbird.
> Thanks,
> Leon
>
>> +{
> [...]
>
