On Fri, 10 Apr 2026 15:49:15 +0800, Leon Hwang wrote: > On 10/4/26 15:40, Feng Yang wrote: > > On Fri, 10 Apr 2026 15:21:26 +0800 Leon Hwang wrote: > >> On 10/4/26 14:10, Feng Yang wrote: > >>> From: Feng Yang <[email protected]> > >>> > >> > >> [...] > >> > >>> + > >>> +static int check_attach_sleepable(u32 btf_id, unsigned long addr, const > >>> char *func_name) > >>> +{ > >>> + /* fentry/fexit/fmod_ret progs can be sleepable if they are > >>> + * attached to ALLOW_ERROR_INJECTION and are not in denylist. > >>> + */ > >>> + if (!check_non_sleepable_error_inject(btf_id) && > >>> + within_error_injection_list(addr)) > >>> + return 0; > >>> + > >>> + return -EINVAL; > >>> +} > >>> + > >>> +static int check_attach_modify_return(unsigned long addr, const char > >>> *func_name) > >>> +{ > >>> + if (within_error_injection_list(addr) || > >>> + !strncmp(SECURITY_PREFIX, func_name, sizeof(SECURITY_PREFIX) - 1)) > >>> + return 0; > >>> + > >>> + return -EINVAL; > >>> +} > >> > >> Why did you move them here? Seems that you didn't use them. > > > > Because CONFIG_FUNCTION_ERROR_INJECTION is directly reused here, > > and the function has_arch_syscall_prefix is intended to be used. > > > > You can declare the function instead. No? > > But, the function has_arch_syscall_prefix was not used in your new code?
Indeed, I will fix it in the next version. Thank you. > Thanks, > Leon
