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.
Thanks
Roberto