[ Sasha's backport helper bot ]
Hi,
✅ All tests passed successfully. No issues detected. No action required from the submitter.
The upstream commit SHA1 provided is correct: b238e187b4a2d3b54d80aec05a9cab6466b79dde
WARNING: Author mismatch between patch and upstream commit: Backport author: Shung-Hsi Yushung-hsi.yu@suse.com Commit author: Eduard Zingermaneddyz87@gmail.com
Status in newer kernel trees: 6.14.y | Present (exact SHA1) 6.12.y | Present (different SHA1: 28bcc8024033)
Note: The patch differs from the upstream commit: --- 1: b238e187b4a2d ! 1: 3e2e06b5ee782 bpf: refactor bpf_helper_changes_pkt_data to use helper number @@ Metadata ## Commit message ## bpf: refactor bpf_helper_changes_pkt_data to use helper number
+ commit b238e187b4a2d3b54d80aec05a9cab6466b79dde upstream. + Use BPF helper number instead of function pointer in bpf_helper_changes_pkt_data(). This would simplify usage of this function in verifier.c:check_cfg() (in a follow-up patch), @@ Commit message Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman eddyz87@gmail.com Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241210041100.1898468-3-eddyz87@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov ast@kernel.org + Signed-off-by: Shung-Hsi Yu shung-hsi.yu@suse.com
## include/linux/filter.h ## -@@ include/linux/filter.h: bool bpf_jit_supports_insn(struct bpf_insn *insn, bool in_arena); - bool bpf_jit_supports_private_stack(void); - u64 bpf_arch_uaddress_limit(void); - void arch_bpf_stack_walk(bool (*consume_fn)(void *cookie, u64 ip, u64 sp, u64 bp), void *cookie); +@@ include/linux/filter.h: bool bpf_jit_needs_zext(void); + bool bpf_jit_supports_subprog_tailcalls(void); + bool bpf_jit_supports_kfunc_call(void); + bool bpf_jit_supports_far_kfunc_call(void); -bool bpf_helper_changes_pkt_data(void *func); +bool bpf_helper_changes_pkt_data(enum bpf_func_id func_id);
---
Results of testing on various branches:
| Branch | Patch Apply | Build Test | |---------------------------|-------------|------------| | stable/linux-6.12.y | Success | Success |