On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:36 AM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 23 Aug 2022 at 10:29, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote: > > > They would require func_info which needs prog BTF anyway. Loading BTF > > > and setting the prog btf_fd while loading the prog indirectly requires > > > CAP_BPF, so just to reduce confusion, move both these helpers taking > > > callback under bpf_capable() protection as well, since they cannot be > > > used without CAP_BPF. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > > This should have a fixes tag IMO. You'll get unexpected results if we > > don't have get it backported to the right places. > > > > Hm, I was unsure if this requires a Fixes tag. It's technically not a > fix, it's a minor reorg in my opinion (could have gone through > bpf-next as well) which has no real resulting change for users loading > programs, and makes things less confusing. The actual fix in patch 2 > is independent of this change. Pushed to bpf-next. Such corner case fixes are too risky to go directly into the bpf tree.
