From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 bpf-next 03/10] bpf: introduce per-cpu cgroup local
 storage
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2018 14:03:29 +0200
Message-ID: <21a7ecfb-c7cd-d7aa-01d1-4e055e410817@iogearbox.net>
References: <20180926113326.29069-1-guro@fb.com>
 <20180926113326.29069-4-guro@fb.com>
 <20180928084528.i5txkac34pmqvs3p@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
 <20180928100302.GB9018@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com>
 <20180928102458.dbia6xnxkijvkld6@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20180928102458.dbia6xnxkijvkld6@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

On 09/28/2018 12:25 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 11:03:03AM +0100, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (unlikely(map_flags & BPF_EXIST))
>>>> +		return -EINVAL;
>>>
>>> that should have been BPF_NOEXIST ?
>>
>> Yeah, or maybe even better s/&/!= ?
>> It's probably better to require BPF_EXIST flag to update a cgroup storage?
>> Agree? If so, let me fix this for both shared and per-cpu versions in
>> a follow-up patch.
> 
> I think BPF_ANY is technically valid too.
> If we were to require strict BPF_EXIST only, we'd need to fix stable too.
> I'm fine with both (BPF_EXIST only and BPF_ANY|BPF_EXIST).
> Daniel, what do you think?

I'm okay with either option, both seem plausible.