On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 01:49:26PM -0700, Jordan Rife wrote:

quoted

IMO, calling it BPF_F_EGRESS would be less confusing. It's a shame we
can't have the same flag API between bpf_redirect() and
bpf_redirect_peer(), but this is creating inconsistent semantics for
the terms egress/ingress across the two helpers.

Yeah, one annoying thing about BPF_F_EGRESS is that it would only
apply to bpf_redirect_peer, so you still have inconsistencies across

Yes, that's what I meant by "we can't have the same flag API" :)
Alternatively, we could define BPF_F_EGRESS as 1ULL << 1, for both
helpers, but I'm not sure it's worth it. Maybe Daniel will have another
idea?

helpers. Perhaps this is less weird than having BPF_F_INGRESS perform
an egress redirection though.

Jordan