fix(epbf): fix behavior of has_prefix() and add strncmp()
#4394
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
oshaked1
force-pushed
the
has_prefix_to_strncmp
branch
from
a0f80bd to
2a66416
Compare
yanivagman
reviewed
Nov 25, 2024
pkg/ebpf/c/tracee.bpf.c
Outdated
| int pid = 0; | ||
| void *path_buf = get_path_str_cached(file); | ||
| if (path_buf != NULL && has_prefix("/dev/null", (char *) path_buf, 10)) { | ||
| if (path_buf != NULL && strncmp("/dev/null", (char *) path_buf, 9) == 0) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In this case, don't we want to compare 10 bytes to take into account null byte as well?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You're right I'll change it
There are 2 implementations for `has_prefix()`, one as a macro and one as a function (depending on the compiler version). They both behave differently in cases where no difference was found in `n` iterations - the macro returns 1 (true), which is an issue if the prefix is longer than `n`, while the function returns 0 (false) which is wrong if the prefix and string are identical. An additional check was added to `has_prefix()` to account for prefixes longer than `n`, while still returning true when the strings are equal. Additionally, an `strncmp()` macro and function were added, because most uses of `has_prefix()` become clearer when using `strncmp()`. Only a single usage of `has_prefix()` (in `filter_file_path()`) cannot use `strncmp()` because the prefix length can only be determined at runtime which makes usage of an unrolled loop impossible. Instead, it must use `has_prefix()` which accounts for prefixes shorter than the string, unlike `strncmp()`.
oshaked1
force-pushed
the
has_prefix_to_strncmp
branch
from
2a66416 to
154325e
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Closes #4395
There are 2 implementations for
has_prefix(), one as a macro and one as a function (depending on the compiler version). They both behave differently in cases where no difference was found inniterations - the macro returns 1 (true), which is an issue if the prefix is longer thann, while the function returns 0 (false) which is wrong if the prefix and string are identical. An additional check was added tohas_prefix()to account for prefixes longer thann, while still returning true when the strings are equal.Additionally, an
strncmp()macro and function were added, because most uses ofhas_prefix()become clearer when usingstrncmp().Only a single usage of
has_prefix()(infilter_file_path()) cannot usestrncmp()because the prefix length can only be determined at runtime which makes usage of an unrolled loop impossible. Instead, it must usehas_prefix()which accounts for prefixes shorter than the string, unlikestrncmp().