On 2/13/25 10:56 PM, Jason Xing wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 2:40 PM Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2/13/25 10:12 PM, Jason Xing wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 1:41 PM Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2/13/25 7:09 PM, Jason Xing wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 10:14 AM Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2/13/25 3:57 PM, Jason Xing wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 7:41 AM Stanislav Fomichev<stfomichev@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 02/13, Jason Xing wrote:
Support bpf_setsockopt() to set the maximum value of RTO for
BPF program.
Signed-off-by: Jason Xing<kerneljasonxing@xxxxxxxxx>
---
Documentation/networking/ip-sysctl.rst | 3 ++-
include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 2 ++
net/core/filter.c | 6 ++++++
tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 2 ++
4 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/networking/ip-sysctl.rst b/Documentation/networking/ip-sysctl.rst
index 054561f8dcae..78eb0959438a 100644
--- a/Documentation/networking/ip-sysctl.rst
+++ b/Documentation/networking/ip-sysctl.rst
@@ -1241,7 +1241,8 @@ tcp_rto_min_us - INTEGER
tcp_rto_max_ms - INTEGER
Maximal TCP retransmission timeout (in ms).
- Note that TCP_RTO_MAX_MS socket option has higher precedence.
+ Note that TCP_BPF_RTO_MAX and TCP_RTO_MAX_MS socket option have the
+ higher precedence for configuring this setting.
The cover letter needs more explanation about the motivation.
+1
I haven't looked at the patches. The cover letter has no word on the use case.
The question was your _use case_ in bpf. Not what the TCP_RTO_MAX_MS does. Your
current use case is to have bpf setting it after reading the tcp header option,
like the selftest in patch 3?
Oops, I misunderstood the real situation of the tcp header option
test. My intention is to bpf_setsockopt() just like setget_sockopt
does.
Thanks for reminding me. I will totally remove the header test in the
next version.
If your use case was in the header, it is ok although it won't be the first
I was planning to add a simple test to only see if the rto max for bpf
feature works, so I found the rto min selftests and then did a similar
one.
useful place I have in my mind. Regardless, it is useful to say a few words
where you are planning to set it in the bpf. During a cb in sockops or during
socket create ...etc. Without it, we can only guess from the selftest :(
I see your point. After evaluating and comparing those two tests, I
think the setsock_opt is a better place to go. Do we even apply the
use of rto min to setsock_opt as well?
What do you think?
Adding to sol_tcp_tests[] as Kuniyuki suggested should be the straight forward way.
Please still describe how you are going to use it in bpf in the cover letter.
I will add and copy some words from Eric's patch series :)
I am targeting the net-next tree because of recent changes[1] made by
Eric. It probably hasn't merged into the bpf-next tree.
There is the bpf-next/net tree. It should have the needed changes.
[1] was recently merged in the net-next tree, so the only one branch I
can target is net-next.
[1]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net-next.git/commit/?id=ae9b3c0e79bc
Am I missing something?
There is a net branch:
^^^
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next.git
But this branch hasn't included the rto max feature. I was trying to
Which branch? I was talking about the **net** branch. Not the master branch. Try
to pull again if your local copy does not have it. The net branch should have
the TCP_RTO_MAX_MS patches.
Oh, I always use the master branch, never heard of net branch. You're
right, I checked out the net branch and then found it. Thanks.
One more thing I have to ask in advance is that in this case what the
title looks like? [patch bpf] or [patch bpf net]?
[PATCH bpf-next]
