On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 08:49:14AM -0800, Stanislav Fomichev wrote: > On 02/09, Oliver Crumrine wrote: > > Originally, this patch removed a redundant check in > > BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_INET_EGRESS, as the check was already being done in > > the function it called, __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_skb. For v2, it was > > reccomended that I remove the check from __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_skb, > > and add the checks to the other macro that calls that function, > > BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_INET_INGRESS. > > > > To sum it up, checking that the socket exists and that it is a full > > socket is now part of both macros BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_INET_EGRESS and > > BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_INET_INGRESS, and it is no longer part of the > > function they call, __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_skb. > > > > Signed-off-by: Oliver Crumrine <ozlinuxc@xxxxxxxxx> > > Acked-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx> Quick question: My subject had "net:" in it. Should it have had "bpf:" in the subject instead? If yes, would this warrant another version of this patch or resending it with a different subject? It felt right to put net: there as it felt like I was working with networking code that was simply calling bpf code but I'm not exactly sure of that anymore. This is my first kernel patch that has actually gone anywhere and I'm just looking for some feedback as I couldn't find much good documentation on kernel.org that describes how I should be doing this. Thanks, Oliver
