On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 07:42 AM -08, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 1:44 AM Pengcheng Yang <yangpc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Like skb->_sk_redir, we bundle the sock redirect pointer and >> the ingress bit to manage them together. >> >> Suggested-by: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/87cz97cnz8.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Signed-off-by: Pengcheng Yang <yangpc@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> include/linux/skmsg.h | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- >> net/core/skmsg.c | 18 ++++++++++-------- >> net/ipv4/tcp_bpf.c | 13 +++++++------ >> net/tls/tls_sw.c | 11 ++++++----- >> 4 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/include/linux/skmsg.h b/include/linux/skmsg.h >> index c1637515a8a4..ae021f511f46 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/skmsg.h >> +++ b/include/linux/skmsg.h >> @@ -78,11 +78,10 @@ struct sk_psock_work_state { >> >> struct sk_psock { >> struct sock *sk; >> - struct sock *sk_redir; >> + unsigned long _sk_redir; > > Please don't. > There is no need to bundle them together. Seeing how the code turned out, I agree - it didn't work out. Code is not any simpler. My gut feeling was wrong here. I gotta ask for, for the future, though - this is not a "no" to tagged pointers in general, right?
