On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 06:58:09AM IST, KP Singh wrote: > In preparation for the addition of bpf_getxattr kfunc. > > Signed-off-by: KP Singh <kpsingh@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > kernel/bpf/btf.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/btf.c b/kernel/bpf/btf.c > index 02d7951591ae..541cf4635aa1 100644 > --- a/kernel/bpf/btf.c > +++ b/kernel/bpf/btf.c > @@ -7264,6 +7264,7 @@ static int bpf_prog_type_to_kfunc_hook(enum bpf_prog_type prog_type) > case BPF_PROG_TYPE_STRUCT_OPS: > return BTF_KFUNC_HOOK_STRUCT_OPS; > case BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING: > + case BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM: > return BTF_KFUNC_HOOK_TRACING; Should we define another BTF_KFUNC_HOOK_LSM instead? Otherwise when you register for tracing or lsm progs, you write to the same hook instead, so kfunc enabled for tracing progs also gets enabled for lsm, I guess that is not what user intends when registering kfunc set. > case BPF_PROG_TYPE_SYSCALL: > return BTF_KFUNC_HOOK_SYSCALL; > -- > 2.37.0.rc0.104.g0611611a94-goog > -- Kartikeya
