From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-186.mta0.migadu.com (out-186.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.186]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E96062810 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 23:47:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.186 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707868061; cv=none; b=i9JxU/SdtwKF+rPUsAbIAzgf7IWd2mwbpls3tqOHtiUK7szZTPdfDB52XPM8ORWFrln0RY2pXGL2uK6X4OibHMl1y6FaLkq12fDcIIVEfiTuFBs6dK5NSGspZLBO/pAI9IEtXy08nhWrNbFh6T51WivhCxbvqLKn1glTA38TWZs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707868061; c=relaxed/simple; bh=1OBCRnlZJiUNgmqrqru5Gnm9jN5M8aBjgnUT/VYI22w=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=UwVITXHIUbtUDZfo7CtB1Nw15Qx17QITX6CFZN1LEITYw9wd4N2VGswtvm7zIVjh0lk+bD9oGxKO2RS4RgfMNGl3vYdCU8TejRjWM6Jmw497SYUUQfvai2QyNluu4loUkj1UQ1wZaeNw1ajMflFMnxFflRW0G6+/EaZdLPGBWVE= 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=rxxtW7HM; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.186 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="rxxtW7HM" Message-ID: <1fa358e9-5a39-4d03-83b4-310a08aeedd7@linux.dev> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1707868057; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=dV6c9Kxgc2BZuaDPGNbAUxKGIn3whIFP96peZqimM+M=; b=rxxtW7HMEYuiMkDdQcmBD3AGEttDQgWs/eXaNnHrJwOyeAVnF4LvUGpKFQM7b1QP4qq9TB dWJdl7JkZFTfaMXX0Mbq9uv4NyjPPOL20RX3JGMFqq/AXT/WgWoiJKiWqHOnLNeAqnicz1 BT+Zb+gBPBCIQpKUFZaxgvPlj/mJhHQ= Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 15:47:29 -0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next] net: remove check in __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_skb Content-Language: en-US To: Oliver Crumrine , Stanislav Fomichev Cc: ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, john.fastabend@gmail.com, andrii@kernel.org, song@kernel.org, yonghong.song@linux.dev, kpsingh@kernel.org, haoluo@google.com, jolsa@kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <7lv62yiyvmj5a7eozv2iznglpkydkdfancgmbhiptrgvgan5sy@3fl3onchgdz3> X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Martin KaFai Lau In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT On 2/13/24 10:37 AM, Oliver Crumrine wrote: > On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 08:49:14AM -0800, Stanislav Fomichev wrote: >> On 02/09, Oliver Crumrine wrote: >>> Originally, this patch removed a redundant check in >>> BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_INET_EGRESS, as the check was already being done in >>> the function it called, __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_skb. For v2, it was >>> reccomended that I remove the check from __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_skb, >>> and add the checks to the other macro that calls that function, >>> BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_INET_INGRESS. >>> >>> To sum it up, checking that the socket exists and that it is a full >>> socket is now part of both macros BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_INET_EGRESS and >>> BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_INET_INGRESS, and it is no longer part of the >>> function they call, __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_skb. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Oliver Crumrine >> >> Acked-by: Stanislav Fomichev > > Quick question: My subject had "net:" in it. Should it have had "bpf:" in > the subject instead? > > If yes, would this warrant another version of this patch or resending it > with a different subject? I fixed it up with "bpf:". Applied. Thanks.