Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: btf: restore resolve_mode when popping the resolve stack

[Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>]

On 5/17/23 2:01 AM, Lorenz Bauer wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 7:26 AM Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev> wrote:
>>
>> On 5/15/23 5:15 AM, Lorenz Bauer wrote:
>>> In commit 9b459804ff99 ("btf: fix resolving BTF_KIND_VAR after ARRAY, STRUCT, UNION, PTR")
>>> I fixed a bug that occurred during resolving of a DATASEC by strategically resetting
>>> resolve_mode. This fixes the immediate bug but leaves us open to future bugs where
>>> nested types have to be resolved.
>>
>> hmm... future bugs like when adding new BTF_KIND in the future?
> 
> It could just be refactoring of the codebase? What is the downside of
> restoring the mode when popping the item? It also makes push and pop
> symmetrical.

I can see your point to refactor it to make it work for all different BTF_KIND.

Other than BTF_KIND_DATASEC, env->resolve_mode stays the same for all other 
kinds once it is decided. It is why resolve_mode is in the "env" instead of "v". 
My concern is this will hide some bugs (existing or future) that accidentally 
changed the resolve_mode in the middle. If there is another legit case that 
could be found other than BTF_KIND_DATASEC, that will be a better time to do 
this refactoring with a proper test case considering most bpf progs need btf to 
load nowadays and probably need to veristat test also. If it came to that, might 
as well consider moving resolve_mode from "env" to "v".

btf_datasec_resolve() is acting as a very top level resolver like btf_resolve(), 
so it reset env->resolve_mode before resolving its var member like how 
btf_resolve() does. imo, together with env->resolve_mode stays the same for 
others, it is more straight forward to reason. I understand that it is personal 
preference and could argue either way.