summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/kernel/bpf
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorDave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@fb.com>2023-10-13 22:44:22 +0200
committerAndrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>2023-10-14 00:48:58 +0200
commitf10ca5da5bd71e5cefed7995e75a7c873ce3816e (patch)
tree4c7ea8cb4ca5de5d5dab49142931fc55b0794e33 /kernel/bpf
parentbpf: Change syscall_nr type to int in struct syscall_tp_t (diff)
downloadlinux-f10ca5da5bd71e5cefed7995e75a7c873ce3816e.tar.xz
linux-f10ca5da5bd71e5cefed7995e75a7c873ce3816e.zip
bpf: Don't explicitly emit BTF for struct btf_iter_num
Commit 6018e1f407cc ("bpf: implement numbers iterator") added the BTF_TYPE_EMIT line that this patch is modifying. The struct btf_iter_num doesn't exist, so only a forward declaration is emitted in BTF: FWD 'btf_iter_num' fwd_kind=struct That commit was probably hoping to ensure that struct bpf_iter_num is emitted in vmlinux BTF. A previous version of this patch changed the line to emit the correct type, but Yonghong confirmed that it would definitely be emitted regardless in [0], so this patch simply removes the line. This isn't marked "Fixes" because the extraneous btf_iter_num FWD wasn't causing any issues that I noticed, aside from mild confusion when I looked through the code. [0]: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/25d08207-43e6-36a8-5e0f-47a913d4cda5@linux.dev/ Signed-off-by: Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev> Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20231013204426.1074286-2-davemarchevsky@fb.com
Diffstat (limited to 'kernel/bpf')
-rw-r--r--kernel/bpf/bpf_iter.c2
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 2 deletions
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_iter.c b/kernel/bpf/bpf_iter.c
index 96856f130cbf..833faa04461b 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/bpf_iter.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/bpf_iter.c
@@ -793,8 +793,6 @@ __bpf_kfunc int bpf_iter_num_new(struct bpf_iter_num *it, int start, int end)
BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct bpf_iter_num_kern) != sizeof(struct bpf_iter_num));
BUILD_BUG_ON(__alignof__(struct bpf_iter_num_kern) != __alignof__(struct bpf_iter_num));
- BTF_TYPE_EMIT(struct btf_iter_num);
-
/* start == end is legit, it's an empty range and we'll just get NULL
* on first (and any subsequent) bpf_iter_num_next() call
*/