Re: [RFC bpf-next v2 2/3] bpf: Add PPPoE decap support to bpf_skb_adjust_room

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Low] bpf: multi-line comment violates subsystem style
--

commit c1a6f04f8833d9df42d737a66bf20c54f24fcd8b
Author: ThisSeanZhang <thisseanzhang@gmail.com>
Subject: bpf: Add PPPoE decap support to bpf_skb_adjust_room

This commit adds the BPF_F_ADJ_ROOM_DECAP_PPPOE flag to bpf_skb_adjust_room(),
enabling TC BPF programs to decapsulate PPPoE session packets. It removes
the PPPoE headers and restores plain IPv4 or IPv6 skb metadata for later
consumers.

> diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c
> index 80ebf3cf2e783..c6f7ccee5c187 100644
> --- a/net/core/filter.c
> +++ b/net/core/filter.c

[ ... ]

> @@ -3920,6 +3960,23 @@ BPF_CALL_4(bpf_skb_adjust_room, struct sk_buff *, skb, s32, len_diff,
>  		    (flags & BPF_F_ADJ_ROOM_DECAP_IPXIP_MASK))
>  			return -EINVAL;
>  
> +		/* PPPoE decapsulation is mutually exclusive with the
> +		 * other decapsulation types.
> +		 */

[Severity: Low]
This isn't a bug, but does this multi-line comment follow the preferred
BPF subsystem style? 

The BPF subsystem conventions require multi-line comments to have the
opening /* on its own line. Could this be updated to match the standard
formatting?

/*
 * PPPoE decapsulation is mutually exclusive with the
 * other decapsulation types.
 */

> +		if ((flags & BPF_F_ADJ_ROOM_DECAP_PPPOE) &&
> +		    (flags & (BPF_F_ADJ_ROOM_DECAP_MASK &
> +			      ~BPF_F_ADJ_ROOM_DECAP_PPPOE)))
> +			return -EINVAL;
> +
> +		if (flags & BPF_F_ADJ_ROOM_DECAP_PPPOE) {

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261003193347.1137527-1-thisseanzhang@gmail.com?part=2