[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YwrpL9b3NXtjnPru@kernel.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2022 07:03:59 +0300
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
To: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com>
Cc: ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org,
martin.lau@...ux.dev, song@...nel.org, yhs@...com,
john.fastabend@...il.com, kpsingh@...nel.org, sdf@...gle.com,
haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org, mykolal@...com,
corbet@....net, dhowells@...hat.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
mingo@...hat.com, paul@...l-moore.com, jmorris@...ei.org,
serge@...lyn.com, shuah@...nel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
deso@...teo.net, Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 04/10] KEYS: Move KEY_LOOKUP_ to include/linux/key.h
and add flags check function
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@...wei.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@...wei.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.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?
If there overwhelming amount of call sites I do fully
get having a helper.
BR, Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists