On Sun, 12 Apr 2026 11:39:53 +0800, Menglong Dong wrote:
> > static bool return_retval_range(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct
> > bpf_retval_range *range)
> > {
> > @@ -18416,8 +18522,13 @@ static bool return_retval_range(struct
> > bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_retval_
> > *range = retval_range(0, 0);
> > break;
> > case BPF_TRACE_RAW_TP:
> > - case BPF_MODIFY_RETURN:
> > return false;
> > + case BPF_MODIFY_RETURN:
> > + if (!bpf_security_get_retval_range(env->prog, range))
> > + break;
> > + if (modify_return_get_retval_range(env->prog, range))
> > + return false;
> > + break;
>
> return false by default, as what we did in the previous logic?
>
> + case BPF_MODIFY_RETURN:
> + if (!bpf_security_get_retval_range(env->prog, range))
> + break;
> + if (!modify_return_get_retval_range(env->prog, range))
> + break;
> + return false;
>
Okay, thank you very much.
> > case BPF_TRACE_ITER:
