On Sat, Feb 15, 2025 at 7:45 AM Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. Sure, I will. Another related topic about rto min test, do you think it's necessary to add TCP_BPF_RTO_MIN into the setget_sockopt test? > > > > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 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] Thanks. Will do it. Thanks, Jason
