On Sun, 2022-08-28 at 07:03 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 06:59:41AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 11:22:54AM +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote: > > > On Fri, 2022-08-26 at 11:12 +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote: > > > > From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > In preparation for the patch that introduces the > > > > bpf_lookup_user_key() eBPF > > > > kfunc, move KEY_LOOKUP_ definitions to include/linux/key.h, to > > > > be > > > > able to > > > > validate the kfunc parameters. > > > > > > > > Also, introduce key_lookup_flags_valid() to check if the caller > > > > set > > > > in the > > > > argument only defined flags. Introduce it directly in > > > > include/linux/key.h, > > > > to reduce the risk that the check is not in sync with currently > > > > defined > > > > flags. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Reviewed-by: KP Singh <kpsingh@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Jarkko, could you please ack it if it is fine? > > > > So, as said I'm not really confident that a function is > > even needed in the first place. It's fine if there are > > enough call sites to make it legit. > > And *if* a named constant is enough, you could probably > then just squash to the same patch that uses it, right? Yes, the constant seems better. Maybe, I would add in the same patch that exports the lookup flags, since we have that. Thanks Roberto
