mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org
To: git@danielhodges.dev,bpf@vger.kernel.org,linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org,linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Cc: ast@kernel.org,andrii@kernel.org,daniel@iogearbox.net,vadim.fedorenko@linux.dev,song@kernel.org,yatsenko@meta.com,martin.lau@linux.dev,eddyz87@gmail.com,haoluo@google.com,jolsa@kernel.org,john.fastabend@gmail.com,kpsingh@kernel.org,sdf@fomichev.me,yonghong.song@linux.dev,herbert@gondor.apana.org.au,davem@davemloft.net,git@danielhodges.dev,ast@kernel.org,andrii@kernel.org,daniel@iogearbox.net,martin.lau@kernel.org,eddyz87@gmail.com,yonghong.song@linux.dev,clm@meta.com,ihor.solodrai@linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v8 3/4] bpf: Add signature verification kfuncs
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2026 21:06:35 +0000 (UTC)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8764e69fa3f63a498f9e0008f6936efdeeb0d17546b31b416f22da7ffdb40cac@mail.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260225202935.31986-4-git@danielhodges.dev>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2189 bytes --]

> Add enum bpf_crypto_type_id for runtime type checking to ensure
> operations are performed on the correct crypto context type. The enum
> values are assigned to all crypto type modules (skcipher, hash, sig).

This paragraph appears to be inaccurate. The enum bpf_crypto_type_id and
all three values (BPF_CRYPTO_TYPE_SKCIPHER, BPF_CRYPTO_TYPE_HASH,
BPF_CRYPTO_TYPE_SIG) were added in the earlier commit ddee9f01e40e
("bpf: Add hash kfunc for cryptographic hashing"), along with the
type_id field in struct bpf_crypto_type and the assignment to the
skcipher module.

Should this paragraph be removed or reworded to reflect what this
commit actually introduces?

> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/crypto.c b/kernel/bpf/crypto.c
> --- a/kernel/bpf/crypto.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/crypto.c

[ ... ]

> @@ -438,6 +549,12 @@ __bpf_kfunc int bpf_sig_maxsize(struct bpf_crypto_ctx *ctx)
>  #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CRYPTO_HASH2)
>  BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_crypto_hash, KF_RCU)
>  #endif
> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CRYPTO_SIG2)
> +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_sig_verify, KF_RCU)
> +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_sig_keysize)
> +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_sig_digestsize)
> +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_sig_maxsize)
> +#endif

This isn't a bug, but the existing kfuncs in this file follow the
bpf_crypto_ naming convention: bpf_crypto_encrypt, bpf_crypto_decrypt,
bpf_crypto_hash. The new kfuncs use bpf_sig_ instead. Would
bpf_crypto_sig_verify (and similar) be more consistent for API
discoverability?


---
AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug.
See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md

CI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/22414975518

AI-authorship-score: medium
AI-authorship-explanation: Formulaic boilerplate code and polished commit message suggest possible AI assistance, but iterative v1-v8 development with lore interaction and a human-like commit message inaccuracy pattern indicate primarily human authorship.
issues-found: 2
issue-severity-score: low
issue-severity-explanation: Commit message inaccuracy about enum addition and kfunc naming inconsistency are documentation and style issues with no runtime impact.

  reply	other threads:[~2026-02-25 21:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-02-25 20:29 [PATCH bpf-next v8 0/4] Add cryptographic hash and signature verification kfuncs to BPF Daniel Hodges
2026-02-25 20:29 ` [PATCH bpf-next v8 1/4] bpf: Add hash kfunc for cryptographic hashing Daniel Hodges
2026-02-25 21:06   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-02-25 20:29 ` [PATCH bpf-next v8 2/4] selftests/bpf: Add tests for bpf_crypto_hash kfunc Daniel Hodges
2026-02-25 20:29 ` [PATCH bpf-next v8 3/4] bpf: Add signature verification kfuncs Daniel Hodges
2026-02-25 21:06   ` bot+bpf-ci [this message]
2026-02-25 20:29 ` [PATCH bpf-next v8 4/4] selftests/bpf: Add tests for " Daniel Hodges
2026-05-21 16:30 ` [PATCH bpf-next v8 0/4] Add cryptographic hash and signature verification kfuncs to BPF Felix Maurer
2026-05-22 10:57   ` Daniel Hodges
2026-06-10 19:17     ` Felix Maurer

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=8764e69fa3f63a498f9e0008f6936efdeeb0d17546b31b416f22da7ffdb40cac@mail.kernel.org \
    --to=bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=clm@meta.com \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
    --cc=git@danielhodges.dev \
    --cc=haoluo@google.com \
    --cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
    --cc=ihor.solodrai@linux.dev \
    --cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
    --cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
    --cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
    --cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
    --cc=sdf@fomichev.me \
    --cc=song@kernel.org \
    --cc=vadim.fedorenko@linux.dev \
    --cc=yatsenko@meta.com \
    --cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®