On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 04:30:29PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > 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. I will keep it out of the RCU lock then, as in the patch above. --breno
