On 09/14, Larysa Zaremba wrote: > There is no fundamental reason, why multi-buffer XDP and XDP kfunc RX hints > cannot coexist in a single program. > > Allow those features to be used together by modifying the flags conditions. > > Suggested-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAKH8qBuzgtJj=OKMdsxEkyML36VsAuZpcrsXcyqjdKXSJCBq=Q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > Signed-off-by: Larysa Zaremba <larysa.zaremba@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > kernel/bpf/offload.c | 6 +++++- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/offload.c b/kernel/bpf/offload.c > index ee35f33a96d1..43aded96c79b 100644 > --- a/kernel/bpf/offload.c > +++ b/kernel/bpf/offload.c > @@ -232,7 +232,11 @@ int bpf_prog_dev_bound_init(struct bpf_prog *prog, union bpf_attr *attr) > attr->prog_type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP) > return -EINVAL; > > - if (attr->prog_flags & ~BPF_F_XDP_DEV_BOUND_ONLY) > + if (attr->prog_flags & ~(BPF_F_XDP_DEV_BOUND_ONLY | BPF_F_XDP_HAS_FRAGS)) > + return -EINVAL; > + [..] > + if (attr->prog_flags & BPF_F_XDP_HAS_FRAGS && > + !(attr->prog_flags & BPF_F_XDP_DEV_BOUND_ONLY)) > return -EINVAL; Any reason we have 'attr->prog_flags & BPF_F_XDP_HAS_FRAGS' part here? Seems like doing '!(attr->prog_flags & BPF_F_XDP_DEV_BOUND_ONLY)' should be enough, right? We only want to bail out here when BPF_F_XDP_DEV_BOUND_ONLY is not set and we don't really care whether BPF_F_XDP_HAS_FRAGS is set or not at this point.
