> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> index 46d2762f5993..9ba67089bf9d 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c

[ ... ]

> @@ -13503,7 +13510,9 @@ struct bpf_link *bpf_map__attach_struct_ops(const struct bpf_map *map)
>  		return &link->link;
>  	}
>
> -	fd = bpf_link_create(map->fd, 0, BPF_STRUCT_OPS, NULL);
> +	link_opts.flags = OPTS_GET(opts, flags, 0);
> +	target_fd = OPTS_GET(opts, target_fd, 0);
> +	fd = bpf_link_create(map->fd, target_fd, BPF_STRUCT_OPS, &link_opts);

The code reads flags and target_fd from opts, but the expected_revision field
declared in struct bpf_struct_ops_opts is never read. Looking at similar opts
structures (bpf_cgroup_opts, bpf_tcx_opts, bpf_netkit_opts), they all pass
expected_revision to bpf_link_create_opts. For example:

    link_create_opts.cgroup.expected_revision = OPTS_GET(opts, expected_revision, 0);

However, bpf_link_create_opts has no struct_ops sub-struct to receive
expected_revision, and the kernel's bpf_attr link_create union has no
struct_ops.expected_revision field either.

Is expected_revision in bpf_struct_ops_opts intentionally unused? If so,
should the field be removed from the struct to avoid user confusion? If users
set expected_revision expecting it to be honored, the value is silently
ignored.

[ ... ]

> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h
> index dfc37a615578..2c28cf80e7fe 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h
> @@ -920,6 +920,20 @@ bpf_program__attach_cgroup_opts(const struct bpf_program *prog, int cgroup_fd,
>  struct bpf_map;
>
>  LIBBPF_API struct bpf_link *bpf_map__attach_struct_ops(const struct bpf_map *map);
> +
> +struct bpf_struct_ops_opts {
> +	/* size of this struct, for forward/backward compatibility */
> +	size_t sz;
> +	__u32 flags;
> +	__u32 target_fd;
> +	__u64 expected_revision;
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The expected_revision field is declared here, matching the pattern used in
bpf_cgroup_opts, bpf_tcx_opts, and bpf_netkit_opts. However, unlike those
structures where expected_revision is read and passed through, this field
has no corresponding code path in bpf_map__attach_struct_ops_opts().

> +	size_t :0;
> +};
> +#define bpf_struct_ops_opts__last_field expected_revision

[ ... ]


---
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/21382620878

AI-authorship-score: low
AI-authorship-explanation: The commit follows kernel conventions and existing code patterns, with an oversight (unused expected_revision field) more typical of human development than AI-generated code.
issues-found: 1
issue-severity-score: low
issue-severity-explanation: The expected_revision field in bpf_struct_ops_opts is declared but never used, causing silent data loss if users set this field expecting it to be honored.