[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZcwAFtxMb9j46-rC@google.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 15:49:42 -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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next] net: remove check in __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_skb
On 02/13, Oliver Crumrine wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 08:49:14AM -0800, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > 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>
> >
> > Acked-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
>
> Quick question: My subject had "net:" in it. Should it have had "bpf:" in
> the subject instead?
>
> If yes, would this warrant another version of this patch or resending it
> with a different subject?
>
> It felt right to put net: there as it felt like I was working with
> networking code that was simply calling bpf code but I'm not exactly
> sure of that anymore.
>
> This is my first kernel patch that has actually gone anywhere and
> I'm just looking for some feedback as I couldn't find much good
> documentation on kernel.org that describes how I should be doing
> this.
It's fine, the only part that really matters is [PATCH bpf-next]. That
puts it into bpf patchwork so somebody will merge that eventually :-)
WRT documentation, Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst should have all
the info you need.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists