[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <93fe5cf0-1e22-4036-a6da-b39e0046e16c@linux.dev>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 16:54:04 -0700
From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>
To: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
pabeni@...hat.com, dsahern@...nel.org, willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com,
willemb@...gle.com, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org,
eddyz87@...il.com, song@...nel.org, yonghong.song@...ux.dev,
john.fastabend@...il.com, kpsingh@...nel.org, sdf@...ichev.me,
haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 02/12] net-timestamp: open gate for
bpf_setsockopt
On 10/11/24 9:06 PM, Jason Xing wrote:
> +static int bpf_sock_set_timestamping(struct sock *sk,
> + struct so_timestamping *timestamping)
> +{
> + u32 flags = timestamping->flags;
> +
> + if (flags & ~SOF_TIMESTAMPING_MASK)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + if (!(flags & (SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_SCHED | SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_SOFTWARE |
> + SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_ACK)))
hmm... Does it mean at least one of the bit must be set and cannot be completely
cleared once it has been set before?
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + WRITE_ONCE(sk->sk_tsflags[BPFPROG_TS_REQUESTOR], flags);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists