On Mon, Sep 8, 2025 at 7:37 AM Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> It is to unify map flags checking for lookup_elem, update_elem,
> lookup_batch and update_batch APIs.
>
> Therefore, it will be convenient to check BPF_F_CPU and BPF_F_ALL_CPUS
> flags in it for these APIs in next patch.
>
> Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> include/linux/bpf.h | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 34 +++++++++++-----------------------
> 2 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
> index ce523a49dc20c..55c98c7d52510 100644
> --- a/include/linux/bpf.h
> +++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
> @@ -3735,4 +3735,35 @@ int bpf_prog_get_file_line(struct bpf_prog *prog, unsigned long ip, const char *
> const char **linep, int *nump);
> struct bpf_prog *bpf_prog_find_from_stack(void);
>
> +static inline int bpf_map_check_op_flags(struct bpf_map *map, u64 flags, u64 allowed_flags)
> +{
> + if (flags & ~allowed_flags)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + if ((flags & BPF_F_LOCK) && !btf_record_has_field(map->record, BPF_SPIN_LOCK))
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static inline int bpf_map_check_lookup_flags(struct bpf_map *map, u64 flags)
> +{
> + return bpf_map_check_op_flags(map, flags, BPF_F_LOCK);
> +}
> +
> +static inline int bpf_map_check_update_flags(struct bpf_map *map, u64 flags)
> +{
> + return bpf_map_check_op_flags(map, flags, ~0);
> +}
> +
> +static inline int bpf_map_check_lookup_batch_flags(struct bpf_map *map, u64 flags)
> +{
> + return bpf_map_check_lookup_flags(map, flags);
> +}
> +
> +static inline int bpf_map_check_update_batch_flags(struct bpf_map *map, u64 flags)
> +{
> + return bpf_map_check_op_flags(map, flags, BPF_F_LOCK);
> +}
I don't like these pointless wrappers.
They make the code less readable.
