[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bd7cb49606b6102c5263df94784c850c91434359.camel@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2022 13:04:35 +0200
From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
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,
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, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
deso@...teo.net, memxor@...il.com,
Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v16 05/12] KEYS: Move KEY_LOOKUP_ to include/linux/key.h
and define KEY_LOOKUP_ALL
On Tue, 2022-09-06 at 13:37 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 09:08:23AM +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> > On Tue, 2022-09-06 at 00:38 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 05, 2022 at 04:33:11PM +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. Add them to enum
> > > > key_lookup_flag, so
> > > > that
> > > > all the current ones and the ones defined in the future are
> > > > automatically
> > > > exported through BTF and available to eBPF programs.
> > > >
> > > > Also, add KEY_LOOKUP_ALL to the enum, to facilitate checking
> > > > whether a
> > > > variable contains only defined flags.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
> > > > Reviewed-by: KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>
> > > > Acked-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
> > >
> > > You should remove ack if there is any substantial change.
> >
> > Yes, sorry. I thought you were fine with the change due to:
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/YxF4H9MTDj+PnJ+V@kernel.org/
>
> It was the documentation part, not really the enum change.
>
Ok, so if I remove the documentation I can keep your ack?
Thanks
Roberto
Powered by blists - more mailing lists