On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 09:25:05AM +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote:
On Sun, 2022-08-28 at 07:03 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
On Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 06:59:41AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 11:22:54AM +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote:
On Fri, 2022-08-26 at 11:12 +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote:
From: Roberto Sassu roberto.sassu@huawei.com
In preparation for the patch that introduces the bpf_lookup_user_key() eBPF kfunc, move KEY_LOOKUP_ definitions to include/linux/key.h, to be able to validate the kfunc parameters.
Also, introduce key_lookup_flags_valid() to check if the caller set in the argument only defined flags. Introduce it directly in include/linux/key.h, to reduce the risk that the check is not in sync with currently defined flags.
Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu roberto.sassu@huawei.com Reviewed-by: KP Singh kpsingh@kernel.org
Jarkko, could you please ack it if it is fine?
So, as said I'm not really confident that a function is even needed in the first place. It's fine if there are enough call sites to make it legit.
And *if* a named constant is enough, you could probably then just squash to the same patch that uses it, right?
Yes, the constant seems better. Maybe, I would add in the same patch that exports the lookup flags, since we have that.
Yeah, then it would be probably easier to review too since it is "in the context".
BR, Jarkko