On Fri, 10 Apr 2026 15:21:26 +0800 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.

Because CONFIG_FUNCTION_ERROR_INJECTION is directly reused here,
and the function has_arch_syscall_prefix is intended to be used.

> > +
> > +static int modify_return_get_retval_range(const struct bpf_prog *prog,
> > +                                     struct bpf_retval_range *retval_range)
> 
> NIT: code format issue here.

Thanks.

> Thanks,
> Leon
> 
> > +{
> [...]


Reply via email to