On 2024-09-12 07:19:54 [-0700], Breno Leitao wrote: > Hello Vadim, > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 02:32:55PM +0100, Vadim Fedorenko wrote: > > On 12/09/2024 14:17, Breno Leitao wrote: > > > @@ -72,6 +73,7 @@ static netdev_tx_t netkit_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev) > > > struct net_device *peer; > > > int len = skb->len; > > > + bpf_net_ctx = bpf_net_ctx_set(&__bpf_net_ctx); > > > rcu_read_lock(); > > > > Hi Breno, > > > > looks like bpf_net_ctx should be set under rcu read lock... > > Why exactly? > > I saw in some examples where bpf_net_ctx_set() was set inside the > rcu_read_lock(), but, I was not able to come up with justification to do > the same. Would you mind elaborating why this might be needed inside the > lock? It might have been done due to simpler nesting or other reasons but there is no requirement to do this under RCU protection. The assignment and cleanup is always performed task-local. > Thanks for the review, > --breno Sebastian
