6.10-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Daniel Xu <dxu@xxxxxxxxx>
[ Upstream commit 2b8dd87332cd2782b5b3f0c423bd6693e487ed30 ]
We will soon be generating kfunc prototypes from BTF. As part of that,
we need to align the manual signatures in bpf_kfuncs.h with the actual
kfunc definitions. There is currently a conflicting signature for
bpf_session_cookie() w.r.t. return type.
The original intent was to return long * and not __u64 *. You can see
evidence of that intent in a3a5113393cc ("selftests/bpf: Add kprobe
session cookie test").
Fix conflict by changing kfunc definition.
Fixes: 5c919acef851 ("bpf: Add support for kprobe session cookie")
Signed-off-by: Daniel Xu <dxu@xxxxxxxxx>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/7043e1c251ab33151d6e3830f8ea1902ed2604ac.1718207789.git.dxu@xxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
index d1daeab1bbc14..bc16e21a2a443 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
@@ -3527,7 +3527,7 @@ __bpf_kfunc bool bpf_session_is_return(void)
return session_ctx->is_return;
}
-__bpf_kfunc __u64 *bpf_session_cookie(void)
+__bpf_kfunc long *bpf_session_cookie(void)
{
struct bpf_session_run_ctx *session_ctx;
--
2.43.0
