On 10/15, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 4:15 PM Andrii Nakryiko > <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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?.. > > I wouldn't bother, but offsetofend() is a good suggestion that > can be done in a followup. > > Applied both patches. Thanks Thanks. I'll follow up with offsetofend, sounds like a good suggestion that can eliminate a bit of copy paste.
