On 2026/6/30 下午10:36, Leon Hwang wrote:
On 2026/6/30 22:29, KaFai Wan wrote:
On Fri, 2026-06-26 at 23:43 +0800, Leon Hwang wrote:
[...]
/* Fix up helper call offsets on JIT fallback path. */
-static void bpf_fixup_fallback_helpers(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct
bpf_prog *fp)
+static int bpf_fixup_fallback_helpers(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct
bpf_prog *fp)
{
struct bpf_insn *insn = fp->insnsi;
const struct bpf_func_proto *fn;
int i;
- if (!env || !env->ops->get_func_proto)
- return;
+ if (!env)
+ return 0;
for (i = 0; i < fp->len; i++, insn++) {
- if (bpf_helper_call(insn) &&
bpf_jit_inlines_helper_call(insn->imm)) {
+ if (env->ops->get_func_proto && bpf_helper_call(insn) &&
+ bpf_jit_inlines_helper_call(insn->imm)) {
fn = env->ops->get_func_proto(insn->imm, env->prog);
if (fn && fn->func)
insn->imm = fn->func - __bpf_call_base;
It might be better to use the BPF_CALL_IMM macro. insn->imm =
BPF_CALL_IMM(fn->func);
Makes sense.
This might be applied to Tiezhu's patch.
Hi all,
Alexei said in another thread like this:
```
> [3]
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/
I don't think we need such fallback in patch [3].
```
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/
Should I just drop my previous patch? To be honest, I'm not sure how to
solve the issue mentioned in it. Is that a real problem, and does it
need to be fixed? What is the next step?
Thanks,
Tiezhu
