Hi Jiri, On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 03:04:25PM GMT, Jiri Olsa wrote: > On Sat, Jun 08, 2024 at 03:16:02PM -0600, Daniel Xu wrote: > > The prototype defined in bpf_kfuncs.h was not in line with how the > > actual kfunc was defined. This causes compilation errors when kfunc > > prototypes are generated from BTF. > > > > Fix by aligning with actual kfunc definition. > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Xu <dxu@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_kfuncs.h | 2 +- > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/kprobe_multi_session_cookie.c | 2 +- > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_kfuncs.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_kfuncs.h > > index be91a6919315..3b6675ab4086 100644 > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_kfuncs.h > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_kfuncs.h > > @@ -77,5 +77,5 @@ extern int bpf_verify_pkcs7_signature(struct bpf_dynptr *data_ptr, > > struct bpf_key *trusted_keyring) __ksym; > > > > extern bool bpf_session_is_return(void) __ksym __weak; > > -extern long *bpf_session_cookie(void) __ksym __weak; > > +extern __u64 *bpf_session_cookie(void) __ksym __weak; > > the original intent was to expose long instead of __u64 :-\ > > could we rather change the bpf_session_cookie function to return long? > should be just return value type change Sounds reasonable to me. I don't think the kfunc has made it to a release yet, so perhaps if we extract this commit out as a fix to bpf tree it can still make it into 6.10. That way we won't have to worry about any ABI changes. Thanks, Daniel
