[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2021 18:22:23 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@...il.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, mingo@...hat.com,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
jonathan.lemon@...il.com, alobakin@...me,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, talalahmad@...gle.com,
haokexin@...il.com, Menglong Dong <imagedong@...cent.com>,
atenart@...nel.org, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
Wei Wang <weiwan@...gle.com>, arnd@...db.de, vvs@...tuozzo.com,
Cong Wang <cong.wang@...edance.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Mengen Sun <mengensun@...cent.com>, mungerjiang@...cent.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 1/3] net: skb: introduce
kfree_skb_with_reason()
On Fri, 31 Dec 2021 14:35:31 +0800 Menglong Dong wrote:
> > > void skb_release_head_state(struct sk_buff *skb);
> > > void kfree_skb(struct sk_buff *skb);
> >
> > Should this be turned into a static inline calling
> > kfree_skb_with_reason() now? BTW you should drop the
> > '_with'.
> >
>
> I thought about it before, but I'm a little afraid that some users may trace
> kfree_skb() with kprobe, making it inline may not be friendly to them?
Hm, there is a bpf sample which does that, but that's probably
not commonly used given there is a tracepoint. If someone is
using a kprobe they can switch to kprobing kfree_skb*reason().
Powered by blists - more mailing lists