On Fri, 22 Nov 2024 at 01:24, Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 4:53 PM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
> <memxor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > With the commit f6b9a69a9e56 ("bpf: Refactor active lock management"),
> > we have begun using the acquired_refs array to also store active lock
> > metadata, as a way to consolidate and manage all kernel resources that
> > the program may acquire.
> >
> > This is beginning to cause some confusion and duplication in existing
> > code, where the terms references now both mean lock reference state and
> > the references for acquired kernel object pointers. To clarify and
> > improve the current state of affairs, as well as reduce code duplication,
> > make the following changes:
> >
> > Rename bpf_reference_state to bpf_resource_state, and begin using
> > resource as the umbrella term. This terminology matches what we use in
> > check_resource_leak. Next, "reference" now only means RES_TYPE_PTR, and
> > the usage and meaning is updated accordingly.
>
>
> Sorry I don't like this renaming.
> reference state is already understood as a set of resources that
> were acquired.
> Whether it's an object allocated by bpf_obj_new or any other
> resource.
> I think this patch has a net negative effect.
> People familiar with the verifier already understand what
> refsafe() or acquired_refs are for.
> Calling them slightly different names adds confusion, not clarity.
>
> pw-bot: cr
Ok
