On Mon, Mar 16, 2026 at 08:35:10AM +0000, bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org wrote:

quoted

diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h

@@ -454,6 +454,11 @@ struct bpf_link_create_opts {
 			__u64 expected_revision;
 		} cgroup;
+		struct {
+			__u32 *ids;
+			__u64 *cookies;
+			__u32 cnt;
+		} tracing_multi;
 	};

Should the ids and cookies pointers be const-qualified here?
Every other multi-attach member in this union uses const for
its pointer fields, for example in kprobe_multi:

    const char **syms;
    const unsigned long *addrs;
    const __u64 *cookies;

and in uprobe_multi:

    const unsigned long *offsets;
    const unsigned long *ref_ctr_offsets;
    const __u64 *cookies;

These arrays are input-only (passed straight through to the
kernel via ptr_to_u64), so marking them const would be
consistent with the existing convention and would avoid
compiler warnings for callers passing const arrays.

yep, will make it const

jirka

---
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/23133791558