[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Zca0EfI9ttXileU4@google.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2024 15:24:01 -0800
From: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
To: Oliver Crumrine <ozlinuxc@...il.com>
Cc: ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, john.fastabend@...il.com,
andrii@...nel.org, martin.lau@...ux.dev, song@...nel.org,
yonghong.song@...ux.dev, kpsingh@...nel.org, haoluo@...gle.com,
jolsa@...nel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
sinquersw@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net: remove check in __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_skb
On 02/09, Oliver Crumrine wrote:
> Originally, this patch removed a redundant check in
> BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_INET_EGRESS, as the check was already being done in
> the function it called, __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_skb. For v2, it was
> reccomended that I remove the check from __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_skb,
> and add the checks to the other macro that calls that function,
> BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_INET_INGRESS.
>
> To sum it up, checking that the socket exists and that it is a full
> socket is now part of both macros BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_INET_EGRESS and
> BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_INET_INGRESS, and it is no longer part of the
> function they call, __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_skb.
>
> Signed-off-by: Oliver Crumrine <ozlinuxc@...il.com>
>
> v1->v2: Addressed feedback about where check should be removed.
Can you please repost with [PATCH bpf-next] subj? I think bot is having
problem applying your changes otherwise..
Powered by blists - more mailing lists