[PATCH bpf-next v2 1/4] libbpf: Add bpf_program__add_flags() and bpf_program__clear_flags()

[PATCH bpf-next v2 1/4] libbpf: Add bpf_program__add_flags() and bpf_program__clear_flags()

[Toke Høiland-Jørgensen]

When changing BPF program flags, applications often need to just add or
remove a single flag, without touching the existing ones. When using the
bpf_program__set_flags() function, this requires reading the existing
flags and doing bitwise manipulations before resetting the result, which
is slightly awkward to do, and easy to forget.

Add two new convenience helpers, bpf_program__add_flags() and
bpf_program__clear_flags(), which wraps bpf_program__set_flags() in the
bitwise operations required to modify flags without clobbering the
existing ones.

Suggested-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Ihor Solodrai <ihor.solodrai@linux.dev>
Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com>
---
 tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c   | 10 ++++++++++
 tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h   |  6 ++++++
 tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map |  2 ++
 3 files changed, 18 insertions(+)

diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
index c036e8a91ed8..221c4fe1fb31 100644
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
@@ -9938,6 +9938,16 @@ int bpf_program__set_flags(struct bpf_program *prog, __u32 flags)
 	return 0;
 }
 
+int bpf_program__add_flags(struct bpf_program *prog, __u32 flags)
+{
+	return bpf_program__set_flags(prog, prog->prog_flags | flags);
+}
+
+int bpf_program__clear_flags(struct bpf_program *prog, __u32 flags)
+{
+	return bpf_program__set_flags(prog, prog->prog_flags & ~flags);
+}
+
 __u32 bpf_program__log_level(const struct bpf_program *prog)
 {
 	return prog->log_level;
diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h
index b965ad571540..3932bf9cb490 100644
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h
@@ -1011,6 +1011,12 @@ bpf_program__set_expected_attach_type(struct bpf_program *prog,
 LIBBPF_API __u32 bpf_program__flags(const struct bpf_program *prog);
 LIBBPF_API int bpf_program__set_flags(struct bpf_program *prog, __u32 flags);
 
+/* Convenience helpers to non-destructively add or clear the specified flags
+ * instead of clobbering them as bpf_program__set_flags() does.
+ */
+LIBBPF_API int bpf_program__add_flags(struct bpf_program *prog, __u32 flags);
+LIBBPF_API int bpf_program__clear_flags(struct bpf_program *prog, __u32 flags);
+
 /* Per-program log level and log buffer getters/setters.
  * See bpf_object_open_opts comments regarding log_level and log_buf
  * interactions.
diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map
index 08ab2ea881fb..a811a1b3a085 100644
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map
@@ -458,7 +458,9 @@ LIBBPF_1.7.0 {
 
 LIBBPF_1.8.0 {
 	global:
+		bpf_program__add_flags;
 		bpf_program__attach_tracing_multi;
+		bpf_program__clear_flags;
 		bpf_program__clone;
 		btf__find_by_name_kind_own;
 		btf__new_empty_opts;
-- 
2.55.0

[PATCH bpf-next v2 2/4] selftests/bpf: Add assertions for bpf_program__{add,clear}_flags()

[Toke Høiland-Jørgensen]

Add assertions that round-tripping through bpf_program__add_flags() and
bpf_program__clear_flags() ends up with the original flags value.
Arbitrarily add these to the kernel_flag test prog since that's where
we're already checking for the bpf_program__flags() value (and the test
name contains "flag").

Acked-by: Ihor Solodrai <ihor.solodrai@linux.dev>
Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com>
---
 .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kernel_flag.c    | 20 +++++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kernel_flag.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kernel_flag.c
index 25eb59f460ab..72c0ef8da409 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kernel_flag.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kernel_flag.c
@@ -10,15 +10,31 @@ void test_kernel_flag(void)
 	struct test_kernel_flag *lsm_skel;
 	struct kfunc_call_test *skel = NULL;
 	struct kfunc_call_test_lskel *lskel = NULL;
+	struct bpf_program *prog;
+	__u32 flags;
 	int ret;
 
-	lsm_skel = test_kernel_flag__open_and_load();
+	lsm_skel = test_kernel_flag__open();
 	if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(lsm_skel, "lsm_skel"))
 		return;
 
-	ASSERT_EQ(bpf_program__flags(lsm_skel->progs.bpf) & BPF_F_SLEEPABLE,
+	prog = lsm_skel->progs.bpf;
+	flags = bpf_program__flags(prog);
+	ASSERT_EQ(flags & BPF_F_SLEEPABLE,
 		  BPF_F_SLEEPABLE, "sleepable in program flags");
 
+	ret = bpf_program__add_flags(prog, BPF_F_ANY_ALIGNMENT);
+	ASSERT_OK(ret, "bpf_program__add_flags ret");
+	ASSERT_EQ(bpf_program__flags(prog), flags | BPF_F_ANY_ALIGNMENT,
+		  "bpf_program__add_flags value");
+
+	ret = bpf_program__clear_flags(prog, BPF_F_ANY_ALIGNMENT);
+	ASSERT_OK(ret, "bpf_program__clear_flags ret");
+	ASSERT_EQ(bpf_program__flags(prog), flags, "bpf_program__clear_flags value");
+
+	ret = test_kernel_flag__load(lsm_skel);
+	ASSERT_OK(ret, "test_kernel_flag__load");
+
 	lsm_skel->bss->monitored_tid = sys_gettid();
 
 	ret = test_kernel_flag__attach(lsm_skel);
-- 
2.55.0

Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/4] selftests/bpf: Add assertions for bpf_program__{add,clear}_flags()

[sashiko-bot]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Low] Missing early exit check on BPF skeleton load and flag manipulation operations allows execution to proceed in an invalid state.
--

commit 1694db036efd5301fa9d3722ffe0c0854fa291b9
Author: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com>

selftests/bpf: Add assertions for bpf_program__{add,clear}_flags()
    
Add assertions that round-tripping through bpf_program__add_flags() and
bpf_program__clear_flags() ends up with the original flags value.
Arbitrarily add these to the kernel_flag test prog since that's where
we're already checking for the bpf_program__flags() value (and the test
name contains "flag").

> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kernel_flag.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kernel_flag.c
> index 25eb59f460abe..72c0ef8da409e 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kernel_flag.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kernel_flag.c
> @@ -10,15 +10,31 @@ void test_kernel_flag(void)

[ ... ]

> +	ret = bpf_program__add_flags(prog, BPF_F_ANY_ALIGNMENT);
> +	ASSERT_OK(ret, "bpf_program__add_flags ret");

[Severity: Low]
Should this ASSERT_OK() call be wrapped in an if (!...) goto close_prog;
check?  If it fails, the test will continue executing instead of cleanly
aborting.

> +	ASSERT_EQ(bpf_program__flags(prog), flags | BPF_F_ANY_ALIGNMENT,
> +		  "bpf_program__add_flags value");
> +
> +	ret = bpf_program__clear_flags(prog, BPF_F_ANY_ALIGNMENT);
> +	ASSERT_OK(ret, "bpf_program__clear_flags ret");
> +	ASSERT_EQ(bpf_program__flags(prog), flags, "bpf_program__clear_flags value");
> +
> +	ret = test_kernel_flag__load(lsm_skel);
> +	ASSERT_OK(ret, "test_kernel_flag__load");

[Severity: Low]
Is it intentional to allow execution to proceed if the skeleton fails to
load?  Wrapping this in if (!ASSERT_OK(ret, ...)) goto close_prog; would
abort the test cleanly and avoid cascading test failures.

> +
>  	lsm_skel->bss->monitored_tid = sys_gettid();
>  
>  	ret = test_kernel_flag__attach(lsm_skel);

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260910183222.307208-1-toke@redhat.com?part=2

[PATCH bpf-next v2 3/4] selftests/bpf: Adopt bpf_program__add_flags() helper

[Toke Høiland-Jørgensen]

Adopt the newly added bpf_program__add_flags() helper everywhere the
selftests non-destructively modifies program flags (which turns out to
be every use of bpf_program__set_flags() in the tests).

Acked-by: Ihor Solodrai <ihor.solodrai@linux.dev>
Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/attach_probe.c      | 4 +---
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_verif_scale.c   | 2 +-
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kprobe_multi_test.c | 3 +--
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_metadata.c      | 4 ++--
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_loader.c                  | 5 ++---
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/testing_helpers.c              | 4 +---
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/veristat.c                     | 4 ++--
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xdp_hw_metadata.c              | 2 +-
 8 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/attach_probe.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/attach_probe.c
index 7dadb90e7b68..41136e1c7752 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/attach_probe.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/attach_probe.c
@@ -543,9 +543,7 @@ static void test_kprobe_sleepable(void)
 		return;
 
 	/* sleepable kprobe test case needs flags set before loading */
-	if (!ASSERT_OK(bpf_program__set_flags(
-			       skel->progs.handle_kprobe_sleepable,
-			       bpf_program__flags(skel->progs.handle_kprobe_sleepable) | BPF_F_SLEEPABLE),
+	if (!ASSERT_OK(bpf_program__add_flags(skel->progs.handle_kprobe_sleepable, BPF_F_SLEEPABLE),
 		       "kprobe_sleepable_flags"))
 		goto cleanup;
 
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_verif_scale.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_verif_scale.c
index 652307a1b22e..902a70d5afeb 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_verif_scale.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_verif_scale.c
@@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ static int check_load(const char *file, enum bpf_prog_type type)
 	}
 
 	bpf_program__set_type(prog, type);
-	bpf_program__set_flags(prog, bpf_program__flags(prog) | testing_prog_flags());
+	bpf_program__add_flags(prog, testing_prog_flags());
 	bpf_program__set_log_level(prog, 4 | extra_prog_load_log_flags);
 
 	err = bpf_object__load(obj);
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kprobe_multi_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kprobe_multi_test.c
index ed3fd0a88dab..651123cd8602 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kprobe_multi_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kprobe_multi_test.c
@@ -361,8 +361,7 @@ static void test_attach_api_fails(void)
 
 	sl_skel->bss->user_ptr = sl_skel;
 
-	err = bpf_program__set_flags(sl_skel->progs.handle_kprobe_multi_sleepable,
-				     bpf_program__flags(sl_skel->progs.handle_kprobe_multi_sleepable) | BPF_F_SLEEPABLE);
+	err = bpf_program__add_flags(sl_skel->progs.handle_kprobe_multi_sleepable, BPF_F_SLEEPABLE);
 	if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "sleep_skel_set_flags"))
 		goto cleanup;
 
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_metadata.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_metadata.c
index 047dfdc322a2..3ab963458903 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_metadata.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_metadata.c
@@ -408,14 +408,14 @@ void test_xdp_metadata(void)
 
 	prog = bpf_object__find_program_by_name(bpf_obj->obj, "rx");
 	bpf_program__set_ifindex(prog, rx_ifindex);
-	bpf_program__set_flags(prog, bpf_program__flags(prog) | BPF_F_XDP_DEV_BOUND_ONLY);
+	bpf_program__add_flags(prog, BPF_F_XDP_DEV_BOUND_ONLY);
 
 	/* Make sure we can load a dev-bound program that performs
 	 * XDP_REDIRECT into a devmap.
 	 */
 	new_prog = bpf_object__find_program_by_name(bpf_obj->obj, "redirect");
 	bpf_program__set_ifindex(new_prog, rx_ifindex);
-	bpf_program__set_flags(new_prog, bpf_program__flags(new_prog) | BPF_F_XDP_DEV_BOUND_ONLY);
+	bpf_program__add_flags(new_prog, BPF_F_XDP_DEV_BOUND_ONLY);
 
 	if (!ASSERT_OK(xdp_metadata__load(bpf_obj), "load skeleton"))
 		goto out;
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_loader.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_loader.c
index 794a7dfb0579..28724de06322 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_loader.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_loader.c
@@ -748,7 +748,7 @@ static void prepare_case(struct test_loader *tester,
 			 struct bpf_object *obj,
 			 struct bpf_program *prog)
 {
-	int min_log_level = 0, prog_flags;
+	int min_log_level = 0;
 
 	if (env.verbosity > VERBOSE_NONE)
 		min_log_level = 1;
@@ -766,8 +766,7 @@ static void prepare_case(struct test_loader *tester,
 	else
 		bpf_program__set_log_level(prog, spec->log_level);
 
-	prog_flags = bpf_program__flags(prog);
-	bpf_program__set_flags(prog, prog_flags | spec->prog_flags);
+	bpf_program__add_flags(prog, spec->prog_flags);
 
 	tester->log_buf[0] = '\0';
 }
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/testing_helpers.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/testing_helpers.c
index 3f037949e978..d1d60451c5bc 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/testing_helpers.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/testing_helpers.c
@@ -292,7 +292,6 @@ int bpf_prog_test_load(const char *file, enum bpf_prog_type type,
 	);
 	struct bpf_object *obj;
 	struct bpf_program *prog;
-	__u32 flags;
 	int err;
 
 	obj = bpf_object__open_file(file, &opts);
@@ -308,8 +307,7 @@ int bpf_prog_test_load(const char *file, enum bpf_prog_type type,
 	if (type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_UNSPEC && bpf_program__type(prog) != type)
 		bpf_program__set_type(prog, type);
 
-	flags = bpf_program__flags(prog) | testing_prog_flags();
-	bpf_program__set_flags(prog, flags);
+	bpf_program__add_flags(prog, testing_prog_flags());
 
 	err = bpf_object__load(obj);
 	if (err)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/veristat.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/veristat.c
index e70741c6b9b7..9cfc9b4b41c1 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/veristat.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/veristat.c
@@ -1722,9 +1722,9 @@ static int process_prog(const char *filename, struct bpf_object *obj, struct bpf
 	fixup_obj(obj, prog, base_filename);
 
 	if (env.force_checkpoints)
-		bpf_program__set_flags(prog, bpf_program__flags(prog) | BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ);
+		bpf_program__add_flags(prog, BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ);
 	if (env.force_reg_invariants)
-		bpf_program__set_flags(prog, bpf_program__flags(prog) | BPF_F_TEST_REG_INVARIANTS);
+		bpf_program__add_flags(prog, BPF_F_TEST_REG_INVARIANTS);
 
 	opts.log_buf = buf;
 	opts.log_size = buf_sz;
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xdp_hw_metadata.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xdp_hw_metadata.c
index c5501b3fdf48..ab3f5fc56e86 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xdp_hw_metadata.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xdp_hw_metadata.c
@@ -845,7 +845,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
 
 	prog = bpf_object__find_program_by_name(bpf_obj->obj, "rx");
 	bpf_program__set_ifindex(prog, ifindex);
-	bpf_program__set_flags(prog, bpf_program__flags(prog) | BPF_F_XDP_DEV_BOUND_ONLY);
+	bpf_program__add_flags(prog, BPF_F_XDP_DEV_BOUND_ONLY);
 
 	printf("load bpf program...\n");
 	ret = xdp_hw_metadata__load(bpf_obj);
-- 
2.55.0

Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/4] selftests/bpf: Adopt bpf_program__add_flags() helper

[sashiko-bot]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] Missed replacement of bpf_program__set_flags() in kasan test, contradicting the commit message.
--

commit ccc6f4464177117b4b9c440f9349d856ca5fd357
Author: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com>

selftests/bpf: Adopt bpf_program__add_flags() helper
    
Adopt the newly added bpf_program__add_flags() helper everywhere the
selftests non-destructively modifies program flags (which turns out to
be every use of bpf_program__set_flags() in the tests).

> selftests/bpf: Adopt bpf_program__add_flags() helper
> 
> Adopt the newly added bpf_program__add_flags() helper everywhere the
> selftests non-destructively modifies program flags (which turns out to
> be every use of bpf_program__set_flags() in the tests).

[Severity: Medium]
Does this patch actually replace every use of bpf_program__set_flags() in the
tests?

Looking at tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kasan.c, there appear to be
two uses of bpf_program__set_flags() remaining in serial_test_kasan():

tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kasan.c:serial_test_kasan() {
        ...
		bpf_program__set_flags(prog, BPF_F_TEST_RND_HI32);
        ...
		bpf_program__set_flags(prog, BPF_F_TEST_RND_HI32);
        ...
}

Should these also be updated to use bpf_program__add_flags() to match the
commit message, or was there a specific reason to leave them as destructive
flag updates?

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260910183222.307208-1-toke@redhat.com?part=3

Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/4] selftests/bpf: Adopt bpf_program__add_flags() helper

[Jiayuan Chen]

On 9/11/26 2:32 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Adopt the newly added bpf_program__add_flags() helper everywhere the
> selftests non-destructively modifies program flags (which turns out to
> be every use of bpf_program__set_flags() in the tests).
>
> Acked-by: Ihor Solodrai <ihor.solodrai@linux.dev>
> Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com>


Reviewed-by: Jiayuan Chen <jiayuan.chen@linux.dev>


‌AI pays excessive attention to wording.

maybe just delete whole parenthetical notes‌ "(which turns out ...)"

Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/4] selftests/bpf: Adopt bpf_program__add_flags() helper

[Toke Høiland-Jørgensen]

Jiayuan Chen <jiayuan.chen@linux.dev> writes:

> On 9/11/26 2:32 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> Adopt the newly added bpf_program__add_flags() helper everywhere the
>> selftests non-destructively modifies program flags (which turns out to
>> be every use of bpf_program__set_flags() in the tests).
>>
>> Acked-by: Ihor Solodrai <ihor.solodrai@linux.dev>
>> Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com>
>
>
> Reviewed-by: Jiayuan Chen <jiayuan.chen@linux.dev>
>
>
> ‌AI pays excessive attention to wording.
>
> maybe just delete whole parenthetical notes‌ "(which turns out ...)"

Well, the two instances the bot is complaining about turns out to have
been added after I wrote that commit message; I didn't re-run the 'git
grep' after rebasing for v2, so I didn't notice this.

I'm not sure if those two are candidates for conversion as well, TBH. I
can respin with your suggested change to the commit message, or just
convert those two as well. Or just leave it as-is, I suppose. What do
the maintainers think? :)

-Toke

Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/4] selftests/bpf: Adopt bpf_program__add_flags() helper

[Andrii Nakryiko]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 2:53 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Jiayuan Chen <jiayuan.chen@linux.dev> writes:
>
> > On 9/11/26 2:32 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> >> Adopt the newly added bpf_program__add_flags() helper everywhere the
> >> selftests non-destructively modifies program flags (which turns out to
> >> be every use of bpf_program__set_flags() in the tests).
> >>
> >> Acked-by: Ihor Solodrai <ihor.solodrai@linux.dev>
> >> Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com>
> >
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Jiayuan Chen <jiayuan.chen@linux.dev>
> >
> >
> > ‌AI pays excessive attention to wording.
> >
> > maybe just delete whole parenthetical notes‌ "(which turns out ...)"
>
> Well, the two instances the bot is complaining about turns out to have
> been added after I wrote that commit message; I didn't re-run the 'git
> grep' after rebasing for v2, so I didn't notice this.
>
> I'm not sure if those two are candidates for conversion as well, TBH. I
> can respin with your suggested change to the commit message, or just
> convert those two as well. Or just leave it as-is, I suppose. What do
> the maintainers think? :)
>

let's replace, you'll need another revision anyways, thanks!

> -Toke
>

Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/4] selftests/bpf: Adopt bpf_program__add_flags() helper

[Toke Høiland-Jørgensen]

Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> writes:

> On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 2:53 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Jiayuan Chen <jiayuan.chen@linux.dev> writes:
>>
>> > On 9/11/26 2:32 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> >> Adopt the newly added bpf_program__add_flags() helper everywhere the
>> >> selftests non-destructively modifies program flags (which turns out to
>> >> be every use of bpf_program__set_flags() in the tests).
>> >>
>> >> Acked-by: Ihor Solodrai <ihor.solodrai@linux.dev>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com>
>> >
>> >
>> > Reviewed-by: Jiayuan Chen <jiayuan.chen@linux.dev>
>> >
>> >
>> > ‌AI pays excessive attention to wording.
>> >
>> > maybe just delete whole parenthetical notes‌ "(which turns out ...)"
>>
>> Well, the two instances the bot is complaining about turns out to have
>> been added after I wrote that commit message; I didn't re-run the 'git
>> grep' after rebasing for v2, so I didn't notice this.
>>
>> I'm not sure if those two are candidates for conversion as well, TBH. I
>> can respin with your suggested change to the commit message, or just
>> convert those two as well. Or just leave it as-is, I suppose. What do
>> the maintainers think? :)
>>
>
> let's replace, you'll need another revision anyways, thanks!

ACK, will do :)

-Toke

[PATCH bpf-next v2 4/4] bpftool: Adopt bpf_program__add_flags() helper

[Toke Høiland-Jørgensen]

Adopt the newly added bpf_program__add_flags() helper to
non-destructively add the BPF_F_XDP_DEV_BOUND_ONLY flag to XDP programs.

Acked-by: Quentin Monnet <qmo@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Ihor Solodrai <ihor.solodrai@linux.dev>
Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com>
---
 tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c b/tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c
index 8c2f9255b36d..6ab911e82155 100644
--- a/tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c
+++ b/tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c
@@ -1769,7 +1769,7 @@ static int load_with_options(int argc, char **argv, bool first_prog_only)
 		}
 
 		if (prog_type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP && xdpmeta_ifindex) {
-			bpf_program__set_flags(pos, bpf_program__flags(pos) | BPF_F_XDP_DEV_BOUND_ONLY);
+			bpf_program__add_flags(pos, BPF_F_XDP_DEV_BOUND_ONLY);
 			bpf_program__set_ifindex(pos, xdpmeta_ifindex);
 		} else {
 			bpf_program__set_ifindex(pos, offload_ifindex);
-- 
2.55.0

Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/4] libbpf: Add bpf_program__add_flags() and bpf_program__clear_flags()

[sashiko-bot]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Low] The newly introduced multi-line comment in `libbpf.h` does not follow the required BPF subsystem comment style.
--

commit 70c14f22413bc6ac7381ed8252533a749bda07d7
Author: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com>

libbpf: Add bpf_program__add_flags() and bpf_program__clear_flags()

This commit introduces two convenience helpers, bpf_program__add_flags() and
bpf_program__clear_flags(), which wrap bpf_program__set_flags(). They allow
modifying BPF program flags without overwriting existing ones.

[ ... ]

> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h
> index b965ad5715403..3932bf9cb4903 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h
> @@ -1011,6 +1011,12 @@ bpf_program__set_expected_attach_type(struct bpf_program *prog,
>  LIBBPF_API __u32 bpf_program__flags(const struct bpf_program *prog);
>  LIBBPF_API int bpf_program__set_flags(struct bpf_program *prog, __u32 flags);
>  
> +/* Convenience helpers to non-destructively add or clear the specified flags
> + * instead of clobbering them as bpf_program__set_flags() does.
> + */

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

The BPF guidelines explicitly require multi-line comments to have the opening
/* on its own line, rather than having text on the same line as the opening.

> +LIBBPF_API int bpf_program__add_flags(struct bpf_program *prog, __u32 flags);
> +LIBBPF_API int bpf_program__clear_flags(struct bpf_program *prog, __u32 flags);

[ ... ]

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260910183222.307208-1-toke@redhat.com?part=1

Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/4] libbpf: Add bpf_program__add_flags() and bpf_program__clear_flags()

[Eduard Zingerman]

On Thu, 2026-09-10 at 20:32 +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> When changing BPF program flags, applications often need to just add or
> remove a single flag, without touching the existing ones. When using the
> bpf_program__set_flags() function, this requires reading the existing
> flags and doing bitwise manipulations before resetting the result, which
> is slightly awkward to do, and easy to forget.
> 
> Add two new convenience helpers, bpf_program__add_flags() and
> bpf_program__clear_flags(), which wraps bpf_program__set_flags() in the
> bitwise operations required to modify flags without clobbering the
> existing ones.
> 
> Suggested-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
> Acked-by: Ihor Solodrai <ihor.solodrai@linux.dev>
> Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com>
> ---

Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>

...

Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/4] libbpf: Add bpf_program__add_flags() and bpf_program__clear_flags()

[Jiayuan Chen]

On 9/11/26 2:32 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> When changing BPF program flags, applications often need to just add or
> remove a single flag, without touching the existing ones. When using the
> bpf_program__set_flags() function, this requires reading the existing
> flags and doing bitwise manipulations before resetting the result, which
> is slightly awkward to do, and easy to forget.
>
> Add two new convenience helpers, bpf_program__add_flags() and
> bpf_program__clear_flags(), which wraps bpf_program__set_flags() in the
> bitwise operations required to modify flags without clobbering the
> existing ones.
>
> Suggested-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
> Acked-by: Ihor Solodrai <ihor.solodrai@linux.dev>
> Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com>


Reviewed-by: Jiayuan Chen <jiayuan.chen@linux.dev>

Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/4] libbpf: Add bpf_program__add_flags() and bpf_program__clear_flags()

[Andrii Nakryiko]

On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 11:32 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> When changing BPF program flags, applications often need to just add or
> remove a single flag, without touching the existing ones. When using the
> bpf_program__set_flags() function, this requires reading the existing
> flags and doing bitwise manipulations before resetting the result, which
> is slightly awkward to do, and easy to forget.
>
> Add two new convenience helpers, bpf_program__add_flags() and
> bpf_program__clear_flags(), which wraps bpf_program__set_flags() in the
> bitwise operations required to modify flags without clobbering the
> existing ones.
>
> Suggested-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
> Acked-by: Ihor Solodrai <ihor.solodrai@linux.dev>
> Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com>
> ---
>  tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c   | 10 ++++++++++
>  tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h   |  6 ++++++
>  tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map |  2 ++
>  3 files changed, 18 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> index c036e8a91ed8..221c4fe1fb31 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> @@ -9938,6 +9938,16 @@ int bpf_program__set_flags(struct bpf_program *prog, __u32 flags)
>         return 0;
>  }
>
> +int bpf_program__add_flags(struct bpf_program *prog, __u32 flags)
> +{
> +       return bpf_program__set_flags(prog, prog->prog_flags | flags);
> +}
> +
> +int bpf_program__clear_flags(struct bpf_program *prog, __u32 flags)
> +{
> +       return bpf_program__set_flags(prog, prog->prog_flags & ~flags);
> +}
> +
>  __u32 bpf_program__log_level(const struct bpf_program *prog)
>  {
>         return prog->log_level;
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h
> index b965ad571540..3932bf9cb490 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h
> @@ -1011,6 +1011,12 @@ bpf_program__set_expected_attach_type(struct bpf_program *prog,
>  LIBBPF_API __u32 bpf_program__flags(const struct bpf_program *prog);
>  LIBBPF_API int bpf_program__set_flags(struct bpf_program *prog, __u32 flags);
>
> +/* Convenience helpers to non-destructively add or clear the specified flags
> + * instead of clobbering them as bpf_program__set_flags() does.
> + */

I don't think this is a correct format for doc comment, please follow
the pattern established by other API comments

pw-bot: cr


> +LIBBPF_API int bpf_program__add_flags(struct bpf_program *prog, __u32 flags);
> +LIBBPF_API int bpf_program__clear_flags(struct bpf_program *prog, __u32 flags);
> +

>  /* Per-program log level and log buffer getters/setters.
>   * See bpf_object_open_opts comments regarding log_level and log_buf
>   * interactions.
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map
> index 08ab2ea881fb..a811a1b3a085 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map
> @@ -458,7 +458,9 @@ LIBBPF_1.7.0 {
>
>  LIBBPF_1.8.0 {
>         global:
> +               bpf_program__add_flags;
>                 bpf_program__attach_tracing_multi;
> +               bpf_program__clear_flags;
>                 bpf_program__clone;
>                 btf__find_by_name_kind_own;
>                 btf__new_empty_opts;
> --
> 2.55.0
>