[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEf4BzYNU=zSAm4JpwVAJ-krfRdC+xnA_GF=wxhv8HL-VOp2Sw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2023 10:24:33 -0800
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Linux-Fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Kernel Team <kernel-team@...a.com>, Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 bpf-next 03/17] bpf: introduce BPF token object
On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 10:19 AM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 10:57 AM Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org> wrote:
> > *
> > @@ -901,6 +931,8 @@ enum bpf_cmd {
> > BPF_ITER_CREATE,
> > BPF_LINK_DETACH,
> > BPF_PROG_BIND_MAP,
> > + BPF_TOKEN_CREATE,
> > + __MAX_BPF_CMD,
> > };
>
> Not an issue with this commit. I just noticed that
> commit f2e10bff16a0 ("bpf: Add support for BPF_OBJ_GET_INFO_BY_FD for bpf_link")
> added MAX_BPF_LINK_TYPE to enum bpf_link_type.
> While this commit is correctly adding __MAX_BPF_CMD that
> is consistent with old __MAX_BPF_ATTACH_TYPE (added in 2016)
> and __MAX_BPF_REG (added in 2014).
> I think it would be good to follow up with adding two underscores
> to MAX_BPF_LINK_TYPE just to keep things consistent in bpf.h.
I'll send a small patch adjusting this
Powered by blists - more mailing lists