lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2022 15:27:20 -0700 From: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com> To: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v9 04/10] bpf: minimize number of allocated lsm slots per program On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 11:28:18AM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote: > > > +void bpf_cgroup_atype_get(u32 attach_btf_id, int cgroup_atype) > > > +{ > > > +} > > > + > > > +void bpf_cgroup_atype_put(int cgroup_atype) > > > +{ > > > +} > > From the test bot report, these two empty functions may need > > to be inlined in a .h or else the caller needs to have a CONFIG_CGROUP_BPF > > before calling bpf_cgroup_atype_get(). The bpf-cgroup.h may be a better place > > than bpf.h for the inlines but not sure if it is easy to be included in > > trampoline.c or core.c. Whatever way makes more sense. Either .h is fine. > > Yeah, I already moved them into headers after the complaints from the > bot. Thanks for double checking! > > Let's keep in bpf.h ? ok.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists