[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6d8a18c1-867b-49d2-86e4-c7ccfc1e3ad4@rbox.co>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2026 14:24:30 +0100
From: Michal Luczaj <mhal@...x.co>
To: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...gle.com>
Cc: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>, "David S. Miller"
<davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>, Cong Wang <cong.wang@...edance.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>,
Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>,
Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf v2 3/4] bpf, sockmap: Adapt for the af_unix-specific
lock
Replying to correct myself:
> Since sockmap update can happen in a tracing prog, can you really expect a
> socket to be always owned?
Ha, but I'm wrong! Of tracers only BPF_TRACE_ITER allows calling
sock_map_update_elem(). And those are supposed to lock_sock(). Except some
don't, e.g. sock_map_seq_show(). Or is there something else I'm missing?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists