seccomp_export_bpf_mem

[rusty-snake]

Fixes #121

ToDo:

• Where should the cfg go? The function, Separated impl, Separated impl in new module.

[rusty-snake]

I'm going to prefer separate impl-blocks for new functions.

impl Scmp {
    // >=2.5.0 (min supported by us)
}
#[cfg(libseccomp_2_6_0)]
impl Scmp {
    // >=2.6.0
}

[ManaSugi]

I'm going to prefer separate impl-blocks for new functions.

impl Scmp {
    // >=2.5.0 (min supported by us)
}
#[cfg(libseccomp_2_6_0)]
impl Scmp {
    // >=2.6.0
}

Looks good! Considering adding new apis in the future, it makes sense.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #217 (8e84bb4) into main (2f8c65d) will increase coverage by 0.02%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

❗ Your organization is not using the GitHub App Integration. As a result you may experience degraded service beginning May 15th. Please install the Github App Integration for your organization. Read more.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #217      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   98.24%   98.26%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files          13       13              
  Lines        1195     1211      +16     
==========================================
+ Hits         1174     1190      +16     
  Misses         21       21              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
libseccomp/src/filter_context.rs	97.76% <100.00%> (+0.21%)	⬆️

[rusty-snake]

CI seems to pass now.

Release reminder: Check the cfged section on docs.rs.

[ManaSugi]

@rusty-snake

Is this necessary?
not(doctest)

Without the attribute, I can pass the all tests on my environment (libseccomp v2.5.4)

[ManaSugi]

Oops, the test failed, Sorry

[rusty-snake]

FTR

libseccomp_v2_6 or (doc and not doctest)

We want to include the impl block if

• compiling against libseccomp>=2.6
• testing against libseccomp>=2.6
• generating documentations (for docs.rs)
• but not if we run doctests with libseccomp<2.6

[ManaSugi]

LGTM, thanks @rusty-snake !