[PATCH v10 5/9] bpf: Add bpf_lookup_*_key() and bpf_key_put() kfuncs

[Daniel Müller]

On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 12:02:57PM +0000, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> > From: Roberto Sassu [mailto:roberto.sassu at huawei.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2022 9:47 AM
> > > From: Alexei Starovoitov [mailto:alexei.starovoitov at gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2022 11:34 PM
> > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 06:59:28PM +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> > > > +
> > > > +static int __init bpf_key_sig_kfuncs_init(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	int ret;
> > > > +
> > > > +	ret = register_btf_kfunc_id_set(BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING,
> > > > +					&bpf_key_sig_kfunc_set);
> > > > +	if (!ret)
> > > > +		return 0;
> > > > +
> > > > +	return register_btf_kfunc_id_set(BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM,
> > > > +					 &bpf_key_sig_kfunc_set);
> > >
> > > Isn't this a watery water ?
> > > Don't you have a patch 1 ?
> > > What am I missing ?
> > 
> > Uhm, yes. I had doubts too. That was what also KP did.
> > 
> > It makes sense to register once, since we mapped LSM to
> > TRACING.
> > 
> > Will resend only this patch. And I will figure out why CI failed.
> 
> Adding in CC Daniel Müller, which worked on this.
> 
> I think the issue is that some kernel options are set to =m.
> This causes the CI to miss all kernel modules, since they are
> not copied to the virtual machine that executes the tests.
> 
> I'm testing this patch:
> 
> https://github.com/robertosassu/libbpf-ci/commit/b665e001b58c4ddb792a2a68098ea5dc6936b15c

I commented on the pull request. Would it make sense to adjust the
kernel configuration in this repository instead? I am worried that
otherwise everybody may need a similar work around, depending on how
selftests are ultimately run.

Thanks,
Daniel