@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ extern void *bpf_dynptr_slice_rdwr(const struct bpf_dynptr *ptr, __u32 offset,
extern int bpf_dynptr_adjust(const struct bpf_dynptr *ptr, __u32 start, __u32 end) __ksym;
extern bool bpf_dynptr_is_null(const struct bpf_dynptr *ptr) __ksym;
-extern int bpf_dynptr_is_rdonly(const struct bpf_dynptr *ptr) __ksym;
+extern bool bpf_dynptr_is_rdonly(const struct bpf_dynptr *ptr) __ksym;
extern __u32 bpf_dynptr_size(const struct bpf_dynptr *ptr) __ksym;
extern int bpf_dynptr_clone(const struct bpf_dynptr *ptr, struct bpf_dynptr *clone__init) __ksym;
Currently kernel kfunc bpf_dynptr_is_rdonly() has prototype: __bpf_kfunc bool bpf_dynptr_is_rdonly(struct bpf_dynptr_kern *ptr) while selftests bpf_kfuncs.h has extern int bpf_dynptr_is_rdonly(const struct bpf_dynptr *ptr) __ksym; Such a mismatch might cause problems although currently it is okay in selftests. Fix it to prevent future potential surprise. Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com> --- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_kfuncs.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)