On Tue, Dec 9, 2025 at 1:21 AM Andy Shevchenko
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The printing functions in BPF code are using printf() type of format,
> and compiler is not happy about them as is:
>
> kernel/bpf/helpers.c:1069:9: error: function ‘____bpf_snprintf’ might be a 
> candidate for ‘gnu_printf’ format attribute [-Werror=suggest-attribute=format]
>  1069 |         err = bstr_printf(str, str_size, fmt, data.bin_args);
>       |         ^~~
>
> kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:377:9: error: function ‘____bpf_trace_printk’ might 
> be a candidate for ‘gnu_printf’ format attribute 
> [-Werror=suggest-attribute=format]
>   377 |         ret = bstr_printf(data.buf, MAX_BPRINTF_BUF, fmt, 
> data.bin_args);
>       |         ^~~
>
> kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:433:9: error: function ‘____bpf_trace_vprintk’ might 
> be a candidate for ‘gnu_printf’ format attribute 
> [-Werror=suggest-attribute=format]
>   433 |         ret = bstr_printf(data.buf, MAX_BPRINTF_BUF, fmt, 
> data.bin_args);
>       |         ^~~
>
> kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:475:9: error: function ‘____bpf_seq_printf’ might be 
> a candidate for ‘gnu_printf’ format attribute 
> [-Werror=suggest-attribute=format]
>   475 |         seq_bprintf(m, fmt, data.bin_args);
>       |         ^~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Fix the compilation errors by adding __printf() attribute. For that
> we need to pass it down to the BPF_CALL_x() and wrap into PRINTF_BPF_CALL_*()
> to make code neater.
>
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <[email protected]>
> Closes: 
> https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/[email protected]/
> Closes: 
> https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/[email protected]/
> Closes: 
> https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/[email protected]/
> Fixes: 10aceb629e19 ("bpf: Add bpf_trace_vprintk helper")
> Fixes: 7b15523a989b ("bpf: Add a bpf_snprintf helper")
> Fixes: 492e639f0c22 ("bpf: Add bpf_seq_printf and bpf_seq_write helpers")
> Fixes: f3694e001238 ("bpf: add BPF_CALL_x macros for declaring helpers")
> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
> ---
>
> This is combined change and I think there is no need to split it, but if 
> required
> I can do it in a four changes. Note, the culprits are older than 4 years and 
> stable
> kernels anyway don't go that deep nowadays.

This is pointless churn to shut up a warning.
Teach syzbot to stop this spam instead.
At the end this patch doesn't make any visible difference,
since user declarations of these helpers are auto generated
from uapi/bpf.h file and __printf attribute is not there.

pw-bot: cr

Reply via email to