Hi Jiri,
On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 03:04:25PM GMT, Jiri Olsa wrote:
On Sat, Jun 08, 2024 at 03:16:02PM -0600, Daniel Xu wrote:
The prototype defined in bpf_kfuncs.h was not in line with how the actual kfunc was defined. This causes compilation errors when kfunc prototypes are generated from BTF.
Fix by aligning with actual kfunc definition.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Xu dxu@dxuuu.xyz
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_kfuncs.h | 2 +- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/kprobe_multi_session_cookie.c | 2 +- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_kfuncs.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_kfuncs.h index be91a6919315..3b6675ab4086 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_kfuncs.h +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_kfuncs.h @@ -77,5 +77,5 @@ extern int bpf_verify_pkcs7_signature(struct bpf_dynptr *data_ptr, struct bpf_key *trusted_keyring) __ksym; extern bool bpf_session_is_return(void) __ksym __weak; -extern long *bpf_session_cookie(void) __ksym __weak; +extern __u64 *bpf_session_cookie(void) __ksym __weak;
the original intent was to expose long instead of __u64 :-\
could we rather change the bpf_session_cookie function to return long? should be just return value type change
Sounds reasonable to me. I don't think the kfunc has made it to a release yet, so perhaps if we extract this commit out as a fix to bpf tree it can still make it into 6.10. That way we won't have to worry about any ABI changes.
Thanks, Daniel