* Re: [PATCH mptcp-next 1/4] bpf: Add mptcp_subflow bpf_iter [not found] ` <a75fc3e8df7141ce582448d3f092871a4943fbf4.1725544210.git.tanggeliang@kylinos.cn> @ 2024-09-05 18:24 ` Martin KaFai Lau 2024-09-06 10:02 ` Geliang Tang 2024-09-06 21:29 ` Andrii Nakryiko 0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Martin KaFai Lau @ 2024-09-05 18:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Geliang Tang, mptcp; +Cc: Geliang Tang, Martin KaFai Lau, bpf On 9/5/24 6:52 AM, Geliang Tang wrote: > From: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn> > > It's necessary to traverse all subflows on the conn_list of an MPTCP > socket and then call kfunc to modify the fields of each subflow. In > kernel space, mptcp_for_each_subflow() helper is used for this: > > mptcp_for_each_subflow(msk, subflow) > kfunc(subflow); > > But in the MPTCP BPF program, this has not yet been implemented. As > Martin suggested recently, this conn_list walking + modify-by-kfunc > usage fits the bpf_iter use case. > > This patch adds a new bpf_iter type named "mptcp_subflow" to do this. > > Suggested-by: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org> > Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn> > --- > kernel/bpf/helpers.c | 3 +++ > net/mptcp/bpf.c | 57 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 60 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c > index b5f0adae8293..2340ba967444 100644 > --- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c > +++ b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c > @@ -3023,6 +3023,9 @@ BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_preempt_enable) > BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_bits_new, KF_ITER_NEW) > BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_bits_next, KF_ITER_NEXT | KF_RET_NULL) > BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_bits_destroy, KF_ITER_DESTROY) > +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_new) > +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_next) > +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_destroy) > BTF_KFUNCS_END(common_btf_ids) > > static const struct btf_kfunc_id_set common_kfunc_set = { > diff --git a/net/mptcp/bpf.c b/net/mptcp/bpf.c > index 9672a70c24b0..cda09bbfd617 100644 > --- a/net/mptcp/bpf.c > +++ b/net/mptcp/bpf.c > @@ -204,6 +204,63 @@ static const struct btf_kfunc_id_set bpf_mptcp_fmodret_set = { > .set = &bpf_mptcp_fmodret_ids, > }; > > +struct bpf_iter__mptcp_subflow { > + __bpf_md_ptr(struct bpf_iter_meta *, meta); > + __bpf_md_ptr(struct mptcp_sock *, msk); > + __bpf_md_ptr(struct list_head *, pos); > +}; > + > +DEFINE_BPF_ITER_FUNC(mptcp_subflow, struct bpf_iter_meta *meta, > + struct mptcp_sock *msk, struct list_head *pos) > + > +struct bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow { > + __u64 __opaque[3]; > +} __attribute__((aligned(8))); > + > +struct bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_kern { > + struct mptcp_sock *msk; > + struct list_head *pos; > +} __attribute__((aligned(8))); > + > +__bpf_kfunc_start_defs(); > + > +__bpf_kfunc int bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_new(struct bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow *it, > + struct mptcp_sock *msk) > +{ > + struct bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_kern *kit = (void *)it; > + > + kit->msk = msk; > + kit->pos = &msk->conn_list; > + spin_lock_bh(&msk->pm.lock); I don't think spin_lock here without unlock can be used. e.g. What if bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_new() is called twice back-to-back. I haven't looked at the mptcp details, some questions: The list is protected by msk->pm.lock? What happen to the sk_lock of the msk? Can this be rcu-ify? or it needs some cares when walking the established TCP subflow? [ Please cc the bpf list. Helping to review patches is a good way to contribute back to the mailing list. ] > + > + return 0; > +} > + > +__bpf_kfunc struct mptcp_subflow_context * > +bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_next(struct bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow *it) > +{ > + struct bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_kern *kit = (void *)it; > + struct mptcp_subflow_context *subflow; > + struct mptcp_sock *msk = kit->msk; > + > + subflow = list_entry((kit->pos)->next, struct mptcp_subflow_context, node); > + if (list_entry_is_head(subflow, &msk->conn_list, node)) > + return NULL; > + > + kit->pos = &subflow->node; > + return subflow; > +} > + > +__bpf_kfunc void bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_destroy(struct bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow *it) > +{ > + struct bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_kern *kit = (void *)it; > + struct mptcp_sock *msk = kit->msk; > + > + spin_unlock_bh(&msk->pm.lock); > +} > + > +__bpf_kfunc_end_defs(); > + > __diag_push(); > __diag_ignore_all("-Wmissing-prototypes", > "kfuncs which will be used in BPF programs"); ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH mptcp-next 1/4] bpf: Add mptcp_subflow bpf_iter 2024-09-05 18:24 ` [PATCH mptcp-next 1/4] bpf: Add mptcp_subflow bpf_iter Martin KaFai Lau @ 2024-09-06 10:02 ` Geliang Tang 2024-09-06 21:29 ` Andrii Nakryiko 1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Geliang Tang @ 2024-09-06 10:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Martin KaFai Lau, mptcp; +Cc: Geliang Tang, Martin KaFai Lau, bpf Hi Martin, On Thu, 2024-09-05 at 11:24 -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote: > On 9/5/24 6:52 AM, Geliang Tang wrote: > > From: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn> > > > > It's necessary to traverse all subflows on the conn_list of an > > MPTCP > > socket and then call kfunc to modify the fields of each subflow. In > > kernel space, mptcp_for_each_subflow() helper is used for this: > > > > mptcp_for_each_subflow(msk, subflow) > > kfunc(subflow); > > > > But in the MPTCP BPF program, this has not yet been implemented. As > > Martin suggested recently, this conn_list walking + modify-by-kfunc > > usage fits the bpf_iter use case. > > > > This patch adds a new bpf_iter type named "mptcp_subflow" to do > > this. > > > > Suggested-by: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org> > > Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn> > > --- > > kernel/bpf/helpers.c | 3 +++ > > net/mptcp/bpf.c | 57 > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 2 files changed, 60 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c > > index b5f0adae8293..2340ba967444 100644 > > --- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c > > +++ b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c > > @@ -3023,6 +3023,9 @@ BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_preempt_enable) > > BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_bits_new, KF_ITER_NEW) > > BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_bits_next, KF_ITER_NEXT | > > KF_RET_NULL) > > BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_bits_destroy, KF_ITER_DESTROY) > > +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_new) > > +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_next) > > +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_destroy) > > BTF_KFUNCS_END(common_btf_ids) > > > > static const struct btf_kfunc_id_set common_kfunc_set = { > > diff --git a/net/mptcp/bpf.c b/net/mptcp/bpf.c > > index 9672a70c24b0..cda09bbfd617 100644 > > --- a/net/mptcp/bpf.c > > +++ b/net/mptcp/bpf.c > > @@ -204,6 +204,63 @@ static const struct btf_kfunc_id_set > > bpf_mptcp_fmodret_set = { > > .set = &bpf_mptcp_fmodret_ids, > > }; > > > > +struct bpf_iter__mptcp_subflow { > > + __bpf_md_ptr(struct bpf_iter_meta *, meta); > > + __bpf_md_ptr(struct mptcp_sock *, msk); > > + __bpf_md_ptr(struct list_head *, pos); > > +}; > > + > > +DEFINE_BPF_ITER_FUNC(mptcp_subflow, struct bpf_iter_meta *meta, > > + struct mptcp_sock *msk, struct list_head *pos) > > + > > +struct bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow { > > + __u64 __opaque[3]; > > +} __attribute__((aligned(8))); > > + > > +struct bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_kern { > > + struct mptcp_sock *msk; > > + struct list_head *pos; > > +} __attribute__((aligned(8))); > > + > > +__bpf_kfunc_start_defs(); > > + > > +__bpf_kfunc int bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_new(struct > > bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow *it, > > + struct mptcp_sock *msk) > > +{ > > + struct bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_kern *kit = (void *)it; > > + > > + kit->msk = msk; > > + kit->pos = &msk->conn_list; > > + spin_lock_bh(&msk->pm.lock); > > I don't think spin_lock here without unlock can be used. e.g. What if > bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_new() is called twice back-to-back. > > I haven't looked at the mptcp details, some questions: > The list is protected by msk->pm.lock? > What happen to the sk_lock of the msk? > Can this be rcu-ify? or it needs some cares when walking the > established TCP > subflow? Thank you for your review. msk->pm.lock shouldn't be used here. The conn_list is not protected by msk->pm.lock. I will remove it in v2. > > > [ Please cc the bpf list. Helping to review patches is a good way to > contribute > back to the mailing list. ] This patch is for "mptcp-next", it depends on the "new MPTCP subflow subtest" which is under review on the bpf list. We will send it to the bpf list very soon. Thanks, -Geliang > > > + > > + return 0; > > +} > > + > > +__bpf_kfunc struct mptcp_subflow_context * > > +bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_next(struct bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow *it) > > +{ > > + struct bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_kern *kit = (void *)it; > > + struct mptcp_subflow_context *subflow; > > + struct mptcp_sock *msk = kit->msk; > > + > > + subflow = list_entry((kit->pos)->next, struct > > mptcp_subflow_context, node); > > + if (list_entry_is_head(subflow, &msk->conn_list, node)) > > + return NULL; > > + > > + kit->pos = &subflow->node; > > + return subflow; > > +} > > + > > +__bpf_kfunc void bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_destroy(struct > > bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow *it) > > +{ > > + struct bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_kern *kit = (void *)it; > > + struct mptcp_sock *msk = kit->msk; > > + > > + spin_unlock_bh(&msk->pm.lock); > > +} > > + > > +__bpf_kfunc_end_defs(); > > + > > __diag_push(); > > __diag_ignore_all("-Wmissing-prototypes", > > "kfuncs which will be used in BPF programs"); > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH mptcp-next 1/4] bpf: Add mptcp_subflow bpf_iter 2024-09-05 18:24 ` [PATCH mptcp-next 1/4] bpf: Add mptcp_subflow bpf_iter Martin KaFai Lau 2024-09-06 10:02 ` Geliang Tang @ 2024-09-06 21:29 ` Andrii Nakryiko 2024-09-09 1:12 ` Geliang Tang 1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Andrii Nakryiko @ 2024-09-06 21:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Martin KaFai Lau; +Cc: Geliang Tang, mptcp, Geliang Tang, Martin KaFai Lau, bpf On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 11:25 AM Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev> wrote: > > On 9/5/24 6:52 AM, Geliang Tang wrote: > > From: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn> > > > > It's necessary to traverse all subflows on the conn_list of an MPTCP > > socket and then call kfunc to modify the fields of each subflow. In > > kernel space, mptcp_for_each_subflow() helper is used for this: > > > > mptcp_for_each_subflow(msk, subflow) > > kfunc(subflow); > > > > But in the MPTCP BPF program, this has not yet been implemented. As > > Martin suggested recently, this conn_list walking + modify-by-kfunc > > usage fits the bpf_iter use case. > > > > This patch adds a new bpf_iter type named "mptcp_subflow" to do this. > > > > Suggested-by: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org> > > Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn> > > --- > > kernel/bpf/helpers.c | 3 +++ > > net/mptcp/bpf.c | 57 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 2 files changed, 60 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c > > index b5f0adae8293..2340ba967444 100644 > > --- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c > > +++ b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c > > @@ -3023,6 +3023,9 @@ BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_preempt_enable) > > BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_bits_new, KF_ITER_NEW) > > BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_bits_next, KF_ITER_NEXT | KF_RET_NULL) > > BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_bits_destroy, KF_ITER_DESTROY) > > +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_new) > > +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_next) > > +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_destroy) > > BTF_KFUNCS_END(common_btf_ids) > > > > static const struct btf_kfunc_id_set common_kfunc_set = { > > diff --git a/net/mptcp/bpf.c b/net/mptcp/bpf.c > > index 9672a70c24b0..cda09bbfd617 100644 > > --- a/net/mptcp/bpf.c > > +++ b/net/mptcp/bpf.c > > @@ -204,6 +204,63 @@ static const struct btf_kfunc_id_set bpf_mptcp_fmodret_set = { > > .set = &bpf_mptcp_fmodret_ids, > > }; > > > > +struct bpf_iter__mptcp_subflow { > > + __bpf_md_ptr(struct bpf_iter_meta *, meta); > > + __bpf_md_ptr(struct mptcp_sock *, msk); > > + __bpf_md_ptr(struct list_head *, pos); > > +}; > > + > > +DEFINE_BPF_ITER_FUNC(mptcp_subflow, struct bpf_iter_meta *meta, > > + struct mptcp_sock *msk, struct list_head *pos) this is defining BPF iterator *program type* (effectively), which is different from open-coded iterator. Do you need a BPF iterator program type for this? Or open-coded iterator called from other BPF program types would be sufficient? > > + > > +struct bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow { > > + __u64 __opaque[3]; > > +} __attribute__((aligned(8))); > > + > > +struct bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_kern { > > + struct mptcp_sock *msk; > > + struct list_head *pos; > > +} __attribute__((aligned(8))); opaque[3], but you are using two pointers here. Why the difference? > > + > > +__bpf_kfunc_start_defs(); > > + > > +__bpf_kfunc int bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_new(struct bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow *it, > > + struct mptcp_sock *msk) > > +{ > > + struct bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_kern *kit = (void *)it; > > + > > + kit->msk = msk; > > + kit->pos = &msk->conn_list; > > + spin_lock_bh(&msk->pm.lock); > > I don't think spin_lock here without unlock can be used. e.g. What if > bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_new() is called twice back-to-back. > > I haven't looked at the mptcp details, some questions: > The list is protected by msk->pm.lock? > What happen to the sk_lock of the msk? > Can this be rcu-ify? or it needs some cares when walking the established TCP > subflow? > > > [ Please cc the bpf list. Helping to review patches is a good way to contribute > back to the mailing list. ] > > > + > > + return 0; > > +} > > + > > +__bpf_kfunc struct mptcp_subflow_context * > > +bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_next(struct bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow *it) > > +{ > > + struct bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_kern *kit = (void *)it; > > + struct mptcp_subflow_context *subflow; > > + struct mptcp_sock *msk = kit->msk; > > + > > + subflow = list_entry((kit->pos)->next, struct mptcp_subflow_context, node); > > + if (list_entry_is_head(subflow, &msk->conn_list, node)) > > + return NULL; > > + > > + kit->pos = &subflow->node; > > + return subflow; > > +} > > + > > +__bpf_kfunc void bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_destroy(struct bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow *it) > > +{ > > + struct bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_kern *kit = (void *)it; > > + struct mptcp_sock *msk = kit->msk; > > + > > + spin_unlock_bh(&msk->pm.lock); > > +} > > + > > +__bpf_kfunc_end_defs(); > > + > > __diag_push(); > > __diag_ignore_all("-Wmissing-prototypes", > > "kfuncs which will be used in BPF programs"); > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH mptcp-next 1/4] bpf: Add mptcp_subflow bpf_iter 2024-09-06 21:29 ` Andrii Nakryiko @ 2024-09-09 1:12 ` Geliang Tang 0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Geliang Tang @ 2024-09-09 1:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrii Nakryiko, Martin KaFai Lau Cc: mptcp, Geliang Tang, Martin KaFai Lau, bpf Hi Andrii, On Fri, 2024-09-06 at 14:29 -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 11:25 AM Martin KaFai Lau > <martin.lau@linux.dev> wrote: > > > > On 9/5/24 6:52 AM, Geliang Tang wrote: > > > From: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn> > > > > > > It's necessary to traverse all subflows on the conn_list of an > > > MPTCP > > > socket and then call kfunc to modify the fields of each subflow. > > > In > > > kernel space, mptcp_for_each_subflow() helper is used for this: > > > > > > mptcp_for_each_subflow(msk, subflow) > > > kfunc(subflow); > > > > > > But in the MPTCP BPF program, this has not yet been implemented. > > > As > > > Martin suggested recently, this conn_list walking + modify-by- > > > kfunc > > > usage fits the bpf_iter use case. > > > > > > This patch adds a new bpf_iter type named "mptcp_subflow" to do > > > this. > > > > > > Suggested-by: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org> > > > Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn> > > > --- > > > kernel/bpf/helpers.c | 3 +++ > > > net/mptcp/bpf.c | 57 > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 2 files changed, 60 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c > > > index b5f0adae8293..2340ba967444 100644 > > > --- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c > > > +++ b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c > > > @@ -3023,6 +3023,9 @@ BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_preempt_enable) > > > BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_bits_new, KF_ITER_NEW) > > > BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_bits_next, KF_ITER_NEXT | > > > KF_RET_NULL) > > > BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_bits_destroy, KF_ITER_DESTROY) > > > +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_new) > > > +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_next) > > > +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_destroy) > > > BTF_KFUNCS_END(common_btf_ids) > > > > > > static const struct btf_kfunc_id_set common_kfunc_set = { > > > diff --git a/net/mptcp/bpf.c b/net/mptcp/bpf.c > > > index 9672a70c24b0..cda09bbfd617 100644 > > > --- a/net/mptcp/bpf.c > > > +++ b/net/mptcp/bpf.c > > > @@ -204,6 +204,63 @@ static const struct btf_kfunc_id_set > > > bpf_mptcp_fmodret_set = { > > > .set = &bpf_mptcp_fmodret_ids, > > > }; > > > > > > +struct bpf_iter__mptcp_subflow { > > > + __bpf_md_ptr(struct bpf_iter_meta *, meta); > > > + __bpf_md_ptr(struct mptcp_sock *, msk); > > > + __bpf_md_ptr(struct list_head *, pos); > > > +}; > > > + > > > +DEFINE_BPF_ITER_FUNC(mptcp_subflow, struct bpf_iter_meta *meta, > > > + struct mptcp_sock *msk, struct list_head *pos) > > this is defining BPF iterator *program type* (effectively), which is > different from open-coded iterator. Do you need a BPF iterator > program > type for this? Or open-coded iterator called from other BPF program > types would be sufficient? Yes, no need to define DEFINE_BPF_ITER_FUNC here, will drop it in v2. > > > > + > > > +struct bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow { > > > + __u64 __opaque[3]; > > > +} __attribute__((aligned(8))); > > > + > > > +struct bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_kern { > > > + struct mptcp_sock *msk; > > > + struct list_head *pos; > > > +} __attribute__((aligned(8))); > > opaque[3], but you are using two pointers here. Why the difference? Should be 2, not 3. will update in v2. Thanks, -Geliang > > > > + > > > +__bpf_kfunc_start_defs(); > > > + > > > +__bpf_kfunc int bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_new(struct > > > bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow *it, > > > + struct mptcp_sock *msk) > > > +{ > > > + struct bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_kern *kit = (void *)it; > > > + > > > + kit->msk = msk; > > > + kit->pos = &msk->conn_list; > > > + spin_lock_bh(&msk->pm.lock); > > > > I don't think spin_lock here without unlock can be used. e.g. What > > if > > bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_new() is called twice back-to-back. > > > > I haven't looked at the mptcp details, some questions: > > The list is protected by msk->pm.lock? > > What happen to the sk_lock of the msk? > > Can this be rcu-ify? or it needs some cares when walking the > > established TCP > > subflow? > > > > > > [ Please cc the bpf list. Helping to review patches is a good way > > to contribute > > back to the mailing list. ] > > > > > + > > > + return 0; > > > +} > > > + > > > +__bpf_kfunc struct mptcp_subflow_context * > > > +bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_next(struct bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow *it) > > > +{ > > > + struct bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_kern *kit = (void *)it; > > > + struct mptcp_subflow_context *subflow; > > > + struct mptcp_sock *msk = kit->msk; > > > + > > > + subflow = list_entry((kit->pos)->next, struct > > > mptcp_subflow_context, node); > > > + if (list_entry_is_head(subflow, &msk->conn_list, node)) > > > + return NULL; > > > + > > > + kit->pos = &subflow->node; > > > + return subflow; > > > +} > > > + > > > +__bpf_kfunc void bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_destroy(struct > > > bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow *it) > > > +{ > > > + struct bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_kern *kit = (void *)it; > > > + struct mptcp_sock *msk = kit->msk; > > > + > > > + spin_unlock_bh(&msk->pm.lock); > > > +} > > > + > > > +__bpf_kfunc_end_defs(); > > > + > > > __diag_push(); > > > __diag_ignore_all("-Wmissing-prototypes", > > > "kfuncs which will be used in BPF programs"); > > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-09-09 1:12 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <cover.1725544210.git.tanggeliang@kylinos.cn>
[not found] ` <a75fc3e8df7141ce582448d3f092871a4943fbf4.1725544210.git.tanggeliang@kylinos.cn>
2024-09-05 18:24 ` [PATCH mptcp-next 1/4] bpf: Add mptcp_subflow bpf_iter Martin KaFai Lau
2024-09-06 10:02 ` Geliang Tang
2024-09-06 21:29 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-09-09 1:12 ` Geliang Tang
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox