[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <589ccc1c-12b9-4700-f6d9-b2efd3f9a347@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 12:17:04 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kcm: use BPF_PROG_RUN
On 9/24/19 11:59 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 02:31:04PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> On 9/6/19 10:06 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:03 AM Yonghong Song <yhs@...com> wrote:
>>>> On 9/5/19 2:15 PM, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
>>>>> Instead of invoking struct bpf_prog::bpf_func directly, use the
>>>>> BPF_PROG_RUN macro.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
>>>>
>>>> Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
>>>
>>> Applied. Thanks
>>
>> Then we probably need this as well, what do you think ?
>
> Yep, it's broken. 6cab5e90ab2b ("bpf: run bpf programs with preemption
> disabled") probably forgot about it since it wasn't using BPF_PROG_RUN()
> in the first place. If you get a chance, please send a proper patch,
> thanks!
Sure, I will send this today.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists