[bpf-next] bpf: fix spelling mistake: "obusing" -> "abusing"

From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>

Trivial fix to spelling mistake in error message text.

Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

On 01/10/2018 10:20 AM, Colin King wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> 
> Trivial fix to spelling mistake in error message text.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> ---
>  kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index 97bbef3eecdf..e388f30c4168 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -5336,7 +5336,7 @@ static int fixup_bpf_calls(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
>  			 */
>  			map_ptr = env->insn_aux_data[i + delta].map_ptr;
>  			if (map_ptr == BPF_MAP_PTR_POISON) {
> -				verbose(env, "tail_call obusing map_ptr\n");
> +				verbose(env, "tail_call abusing map_ptr\n");
>  				return -EINVAL;
>  			}
>  			if (!map_ptr->unpriv_array)
> 

This is not in bpf-next tree yet, but only in bpf tree. I will let this sit
for a bit in patchwork until bpf-next has all the stuff from bpf merged back,
and then apply it into bpf-next.

Thanks,
Daniel

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 11:39:14AM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 01/10/2018 10:20 AM, Colin King wrote:
> > From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> > 
> > Trivial fix to spelling mistake in error message text.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> > ---
> >  kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > index 97bbef3eecdf..e388f30c4168 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > @@ -5336,7 +5336,7 @@ static int fixup_bpf_calls(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
> >  			 */
> >  			map_ptr = env->insn_aux_data[i + delta].map_ptr;
> >  			if (map_ptr == BPF_MAP_PTR_POISON) {
> > -				verbose(env, "tail_call obusing map_ptr\n");
> > +				verbose(env, "tail_call abusing map_ptr\n");
> >  				return -EINVAL;
> >  			}
> >  			if (!map_ptr->unpriv_array)
> > 
> 
> This is not in bpf-next tree yet, but only in bpf tree. I will let this sit
> for a bit in patchwork until bpf-next has all the stuff from bpf merged back,
> and then apply it into bpf-next.

since the typo was just introduced in bpf tree it's better to fix it right away.
Applied, Thanks Colin.