Re: [PATCH 5.10.y] bpf: Enforce expected_attach_type for tailcall compatibility

The underlying issue goes beyond XDP though. Another example are programs
of type BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SOCK_ADDR. sock_addr_is_valid_access() as well
as sock_addr_func_proto() have different logic depending on the programs'
expected_attach_type.

Thanks for the 5.10.y backport of 4540aed51b12 ("bpf: Enforce
expected_attach_type for tailcall compatibility"). Holding this until a 5.15.y
version exists too, since fixes need to land on newer trees first.

-- 
Thanks,
Sasha