On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 7:06 PM Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 01:05:19PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 8:29???PM Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 09:51:34AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > > > > > > The bpf changes look ok and Andrii's approach is easier to grasp. > > > > It's better to route bpf conversion to CLASS(fd,..) via bpf-next, > > > > so it goes through bpf CI and our other testing. > > > > > > > > bpf patches don't seem to depend on newly added CLASS(fd_pos, ... > > > > and fderr, so pretty much independent from other patches. > > > > > > Representation change and switch to accessors do matter, though. > > > OTOH, I can put just those into never-rebased branch (basically, > > > "introduce fd_file(), convert all accessors to it" + > > > "struct fd representation change" + possibly "add struct fd constructors, > > > get rid of __to_fd()", for completeness sake), so you could pull it. > > > Otherwise you'll get textual conflicts on all those f.file vs. fd_file(f)... > > > > Yep, makes sense. Let's do that, we can merge that branch into > > bpf-next/master and I will follow up with my changes on top of that. > > > > Let's just drop the do_one_ldimm64() extraction, and keep fdput(f) > > logic, plus add fd_file() accessor changes. I'll then add a switch to > > CLASS(fd) after a bit more BPF-specific clean ups. This code is pretty > > sensitive, so I'd rather have all the non-trivial refactoring done > > separately. Thanks! > > Done (#stable-struct_fd); great, thanks, I'll look at this tomorrow > BTW, which tree do you want "convert __bpf_prog_get() > to CLASS(fd)" to go through? So we seem to have the following for BPF-related stuff: [PATCH 16/39] convert __bpf_prog_get() to CLASS(fd, ...) This looks to be ready to go in. [PATCH 17/39] bpf: resolve_pseudo_ldimm64(): take handling of a single ldimm64 insn into helper This one I'd like to rework differently and land it through bpf-next. [PATCH 18/39] bpf maps: switch to CLASS(fd, ...) This one touches __bpf_map_get() which I'm going to remove or refactor as part of the abovementioned refactoring, so there will be conflicts. [PATCH 19/39] fdget_raw() users: switch to CLASS(fd_raw, ...) This one touches a bunch of cases across multiple systems, including BPF's kernel/bpf/bpf_inode_storage.c. So how about this. We take #16 as is through bpf-next, change how #17 is done, take 18 mostly as is but adjust as necessary. As for #19, if you could split out changes in bpf_inode_storage.c to a separate patch, we can also apply it in bpf-next as one coherent set. I'll send all that as one complete patch set for you to do the final review. WDYT?
