On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 2:26 PM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > It's useful for implementing EDT related tests (set tstamp, run the > test, see how the tstamp is changed or observe some other parameter). > > Note that bpf_ktime_get_ns() helper is using monotonic clock, so for > the BPF programs that compare tstamp against it, tstamp should be > derived from clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC, ...). > > Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > net/bpf/test_run.c | 9 +++++++++ > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/net/bpf/test_run.c b/net/bpf/test_run.c > index 1153bbcdff72..0be4497cb832 100644 > --- a/net/bpf/test_run.c > +++ b/net/bpf/test_run.c > @@ -218,10 +218,18 @@ static int convert___skb_to_skb(struct sk_buff *skb, struct __sk_buff *__skb) > > if (!range_is_zero(__skb, offsetof(struct __sk_buff, cb) + > FIELD_SIZEOF(struct __sk_buff, cb), > + offsetof(struct __sk_buff, tstamp))) > + return -EINVAL; > + > + /* tstamp is allowed */ > + > + if (!range_is_zero(__skb, offsetof(struct __sk_buff, tstamp) + > + FIELD_SIZEOF(struct __sk_buff, tstamp), with no context on this particular change whatsoever: isn't this the same as offsetofend(struct __sk_buff, tstamp)? Same above for cb. Overall, this seems like the 4th similar check, would it make sense to add a static array of ranges we want to check for zeros and just loop over it?.. > sizeof(struct __sk_buff))) > return -EINVAL; > > skb->priority = __skb->priority; > + skb->tstamp = __skb->tstamp; > memcpy(&cb->data, __skb->cb, QDISC_CB_PRIV_LEN); > > return 0; > @@ -235,6 +243,7 @@ static void convert_skb_to___skb(struct sk_buff *skb, struct __sk_buff *__skb) > return; > > __skb->priority = skb->priority; > + __skb->tstamp = skb->tstamp; > memcpy(__skb->cb, &cb->data, QDISC_CB_PRIV_LEN); > } > > -- > 2.23.0.700.g56cf767bdb-goog >
