Re: [PATCH] net: bpf: add static in net/core/filter.c

[Daniel Borkmann]

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 12:04:46PM +0100, Ben Dooks (Codethink) wrote:
> There are a number of structs in net/core/filter.c
> that are not exported or declared outside of the
> file. Fix the following warnings by making these
> all static:
> 
> net/core/filter.c:8465:31: warning: symbol 'sk_filter_verifier_ops' was not declared. Should it be static?
> net/core/filter.c:8472:27: warning: symbol 'sk_filter_prog_ops' was not declared. Should it be static?
[...]
> net/core/filter.c:8935:27: warning: symbol 'sk_reuseport_prog_ops' was not declared. Should it be static?
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@xxxxxx>
> Cc: Song Liu <songliubraving@xxxxxx>
> Cc: Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx>
> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: bpf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ---
>  net/core/filter.c | 60 +++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------
>  1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c
> index ed6563622ce3..f7338fee41f8 100644
> --- a/net/core/filter.c
> +++ b/net/core/filter.c
> @@ -8462,18 +8462,18 @@ static u32 sk_msg_convert_ctx_access(enum bpf_access_type type,
>  	return insn - insn_buf;
>  }
>  
> -const struct bpf_verifier_ops sk_filter_verifier_ops = {
> +static const struct bpf_verifier_ops sk_filter_verifier_ops = {
>  	.get_func_proto		= sk_filter_func_proto,
>  	.is_valid_access	= sk_filter_is_valid_access,
>  	.convert_ctx_access	= bpf_convert_ctx_access,
>  	.gen_ld_abs		= bpf_gen_ld_abs,
>  };

Big obvious NAK. I'm puzzled that you try to fix a compile warning, but without
even bothering to compile the result after your patch ...

Seen BPF_PROG_TYPE() ?

Thanks,
Daniel