From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mta0.migadu.com (out-179.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.179]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C747411660 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 2026 08:45:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.179 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789375547; cv=none; b=C66tYAqEBDDu2ti14ePqrokr9LfVCoNUxw/aFzdIF95cKRKSX9cW8MEqRPyLBT1xsvpKUJJIA9e93tKzGogavtv+XQJ2BbisxfAViDyLB3M834DXnoVbBxLYs5CzZgvW9c1a+K8VzbFJA3Fxc/tHpSED4I8KAKT2dEfMvNoJK+E= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789375547; c=relaxed/simple; bh=fCmcEN2w/YvBwaV3b9hefPqZ881UJA7yaCsX2bSiwBE=; h=MIME-Version:Date:Content-Type:From:Message-ID:Subject:To:Cc: In-Reply-To:References; b=AnZVoqflTDWn9mvFhrrU0IttJfKJ1ompzGnwOvkzXVxAB0LzdieJy1+GNR++1etVnjOfD/bllmGg2q1805175QXqCvG+BQAe3iWWGQOBUS8x+x7gzt4NNaQQxwG5o7fG/dCGRA8eLCAruQeKW9X+0DRPv3hNZhmA7iR7vhWleNw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=L8KxrE/x; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.179 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="L8KxrE/x" X-Envelope-To: bpf@vger.kernel.org DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; bh=fCmcEN2w/YvBwaV3b9hefPqZ881UJA7yaCsX2bSiwBE=; c=simple/simple; d=linux.dev; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type; s=key1; t=1789375542; v=1; x=1789980342; b=L8KxrE/xHrL5dh1wDfURWVC6dCoMadRRDp5RZwdQiiBInd2GxfMKiaNQgBNNCdlcgWRiQk5c VgZmvAUOdLEQ+bbIO3bobA70dSD4jFQREXgnV8/KYVL2j+VvnqbaJiU/BiYEV1+Ki7GkNnRDc3E BD9bgU/VyRp71coSucfvG2OE= X-Envelope-To: bpf@vger.kernel.org Received: by smtp.migadu.com with ESMTPS id db23e7626cd2cd53; Mon, 14 Sep 2026 08:45:41 +0000 X-Mizu-Trace-ID: db23e7626cd2cd53 X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2026 08:45:41 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: gang.yan@linux.dev Message-ID: <3782cb274da7916a0b46f3e8fefac86b19b0e1ab@linux.dev> TLS-Required: No Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf 1/2] bpf: drop duplicate check_app_limited in tcp_bpf_push To: "Jiayuan Chen" , "Geliang Tang" , "John Fastabend" , "Jakub Sitnicki" , "Eric Dumazet" , "Neal Cardwell" , "Kuniyuki Iwashima" , "David S. Miller" , "Jakub Kicinski" , "Paolo Abeni" , "Simon Horman" , "Sabrina Dubroca" , "David Howells" , "Matthieu Baerts" , "Mat Martineau" Cc: "Geliang Tang" , netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, mptcp@lists.linux.dev In-Reply-To: References: September 14, 2026 at 4:24 PM, "Jiayuan Chen" wrote: > Same as the tls one: this looks like a cleanup to me. Is there a real r= egression that affects kernel or user behavior? >=20 >=20Do we really need a Fixes tag? >=20 Hi=20Jiayuan, It's a part of the thread in [1], just kindly remind that there had some = comments from Matt: ''' Also, should this be seen as a fix? From what I understand, some behaviours have changed, and it is only recently that this call is no longer needed. ''' >From my view, it seems like that there have some misses in the 'fixed' co= mmit, so the fix tag should be kept, right? [1] https://lore.kernel.org/mptcp/b5f9e8d7-b738-1df6-3b5e-1d54cbbc663c@gm= ail.com/T/#m1fbcb32408236e2c68554fd26353c98bb59633f9 Thanks Gang > >=20 >=20> Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang > > --- > > net/ipv4/tcp_bpf.c | 1 - > > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > >=20 >=20> diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_bpf.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_bpf.c > > index 2e234d155b5e..d5fcf3ce4861 100644 > > --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_bpf.c > > +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_bpf.c > > @@ -108,7 +108,6 @@ static int tcp_bpf_push(struct sock *sk, struct = sk_msg *msg, u32 apply_bytes, > > off =3D sge->offset; > > page =3D sg_page(sge); > > > - tcp_rate_check_app_limited(sk); > > retry: > > msghdr.msg_flags =3D flags | MSG_SPLICE_PAGES; > > has_tx_ulp =3D tls_sw_has_ctx_tx(sk); > > >