Raj Sahu <rjsu26@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
Hi Raj,
Sorry for delayed response, finally got to read through this series.
Please find a few comments below and in patch #3.
I understand that things are in an incomplete state atm.
[...]
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c
> index ba6b6118cf50..27dcf59f4445 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c
[...]
> @@ -135,6 +160,16 @@ struct bpf_prog *bpf_prog_alloc_no_stats(unsigned int size, gfp_t gfp_extra_flag
> mutex_init(&fp->aux->dst_mutex);
>
> return fp;
> +
> +free_per_cpu_state:
> + kfree(termination_states->per_cpu_state);
> +free_bpf_termination_states:
> + kfree(termination_states);
> +free_bpf_struct_ptr_alloc:
Nit: In verifier code base such exit labels are usually collapsed as one,
as free() functions can handle NULL arguments.
> + free_percpu(fp->active);
> + vfree(fp);
> + kfree(aux);
> + return NULL;
> }
>
> struct bpf_prog *bpf_prog_alloc(unsigned int size, gfp_t gfp_extra_flags)
> @@ -282,6 +317,13 @@ void __bpf_prog_free(struct bpf_prog *fp)
> kfree(fp->aux->poke_tab);
> kfree(fp->aux);
> }
> +
> + if (fp->termination_states) {
> + kfree(fp->termination_states->pre_execution_state);
> + kfree(fp->termination_states->per_cpu_state);
> + kfree(fp->termination_states);
> + }
> +
Does this need special handling in core.c:bpf_prog_realloc ?
Also, is it possible to use alloc_percpu_gfp()/free_percpu() functions
for these fields?
> free_percpu(fp->stats);
> free_percpu(fp->active);
> vfree(fp);
