On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 2:03 PM Daniel Borkmann [off-list ref] wrote:

On 5/30/22 11:28 AM, Pu Lehui wrote:

quoted

The members of bpf_prog_info, which are line_info, jited_line_info,
jited_ksyms and jited_func_lens, store u64 address pointed to the
corresponding memory regions. Memory addresses are conceptually
unsigned, (unsigned long) casting makes more sense, so let's make
a change for conceptual uniformity.

Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
---
  tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c | 9 +++++----
  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c
index 5c503096ef43..7beb060d0671 100644
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c

@@ -127,7 +127,8 @@ struct bpf_prog_linfo *bpf_prog_linfo__new(const struct bpf_prog_info *info)
      prog_linfo->raw_linfo = malloc(data_sz);
      if (!prog_linfo->raw_linfo)
              goto err_free;
-     memcpy(prog_linfo->raw_linfo, (void *)(long)info->line_info, data_sz);
+     memcpy(prog_linfo->raw_linfo, (void *)(unsigned long)info->line_info,
+            data_sz);

Took in patch 1-3, lgtm, thanks! My question around the cleanups in patch 4-6 ...
there are various other such cases e.g. in libbpf, perhaps makes sense to clean all
of them up at once and not just the 4 locations in here.

if (void *)(long) pattern is wrong, then I guess the best replacement
should be (void *)(uintptr_t) ?

Thanks,
Daniel