On 02/13, Oliver Crumrine wrote: > 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. It's fine, the only part that really matters is [PATCH bpf-next]. That puts it into bpf patchwork so somebody will merge that eventually :-) WRT documentation, Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst should have all the info you need.
