From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 2/3] bpf: Add bpf_current_task_under_cgroup helper Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 09:29:35 -0400 Message-ID: <20160812132935.GL2695@mtj.duckdns.org> References: <20160812031454.GA2075@ircssh.c.rugged-nimbus-611.internal> <20160812044818.GA39190@ast-mbp.thefacebook.com> <57AD77B7.5050400@iogearbox.net> <20160812072247.GB31242@ircssh.c.rugged-nimbus-611.internal> <57AD7D77.4090205@iogearbox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Sargun Dhillon , Alexei Starovoitov , netdev To: Daniel Borkmann Return-path: Received: from mail-qk0-f196.google.com ([209.85.220.196]:35051 "EHLO mail-qk0-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752320AbcHLN3h (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Aug 2016 09:29:37 -0400 Received: by mail-qk0-f196.google.com with SMTP id o1so1942756qkd.2 for ; Fri, 12 Aug 2016 06:29:36 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <57AD7D77.4090205@iogearbox.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hello, On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 09:40:39AM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > > I actually wish we could rename skb_in_cgroup to skb_under_cgroup. If we ever > > introduced a check for absolute membership versus ancestral membership, what > > would we call that? > > That option is, by the way, still on the table for -net tree, since 4.8 is not > released yet, so it could still be renamed into BPF_FUNC_skb_under_cgroup. > > Then you could make this one here for -net-next as "BPF_FUNC_current_under_cgroup". > > Tejun, Alexei? lol I should have read the whole thread before replying twice. Sorry about that. Yeah, if we can still rename it, let's do "under". It's more intuitive and gives us the room to implement the real "in" test if ever necessary in the future. Thanks. -- tejun