On 2024-07-03 14:39:16 [-0700], Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > index 25ea393cf084b..f45b03706e4e9 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > @@ -6290,12 +6290,12 @@ struct bpf_tunnel_key {
> > */
> > struct bpf_xfrm_state {
> > __u32 reqid;
> > - __u32 spi; /* Stored in network byte order */
> > + __be32 spi; /* Stored in network byte order */
> > __u16 family;
> > __u16 ext; /* Padding, future use. */
> > union {
> > - __u32 remote_ipv4; /* Stored in network byte order */
> > - __u32 remote_ipv6[4]; /* Stored in network byte order */
> > + __be32 remote_ipv4; /* Stored in network byte order */
> > + __be32 remote_ipv6[4]; /* Stored in network byte order */
> > };
> > };
>
> I don't think we should be changing uapi because of sparse.
> I would ignore the warnings.
There are other struct member within this bpf.h which use __be32 so it
is known to userland (in terms of the compiler won't complain about an
unknown type due to missing include). The type is essentially the same
since the __bitwise attribute is empty except for sparse (which defines
__CHECKER_).
Therefore I wouldn't say this changes the uapi in an incompatible way.
Sebastian
