RE: [PATCH bpf-next v3 03/12] bpf: tcp: move assertions into tcp_bpf_get_proto

[John Fastabend <john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx>]

Lorenz Bauer wrote:
> We need to ensure that sk->sk_prot uses certain callbacks, so that
> code that directly calls e.g. tcp_sendmsg in certain corner cases
> works. To avoid spurious asserts, we must to do this only if
> sk_psock_update_proto has not yet been called. The same invariants
> apply for tcp_bpf_check_v6_needs_rebuild, so move the call as well.
> 
> Doing so allows us to merge tcp_bpf_init and tcp_bpf_reinit.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Small nit if you update it just carry the acks through.

Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx>
 
>  	skb_verdict = READ_ONCE(progs->skb_verdict);
> @@ -191,18 +191,14 @@ static int sock_map_link(struct bpf_map *map, struct sk_psock_progs *progs,
>  			ret = -ENOMEM;
>  			goto out_progs;
>  		}
> -		sk_psock_is_new = true;
>  	}
>  
>  	if (msg_parser)
>  		psock_set_prog(&psock->progs.msg_parser, msg_parser);
> -	if (sk_psock_is_new) {
> -		ret = tcp_bpf_init(sk);
> -		if (ret < 0)
> -			goto out_drop;
> -	} else {
> -		tcp_bpf_reinit(sk);
> -	}
> +
> +	ret = tcp_bpf_init(sk);
> +	if (ret < 0)
> +		goto out_drop;
>  
>  	write_lock_bh(&sk->sk_callback_lock);
>  	if (skb_progs && !psock->parser.enabled) {
> @@ -239,12 +235,9 @@ static int sock_map_link_no_progs(struct bpf_map *map, struct sock *sk)
>  	if (IS_ERR(psock))
>  		return PTR_ERR(psock);
>  
> -	if (psock) {
> -		tcp_bpf_reinit(sk);
> -		return 0;
> -	}
> +	if (!psock)
> +		psock = sk_psock_init(sk, map->numa_node);
>  
> -	psock = sk_psock_init(sk, map->numa_node);
>  	if (!psock)
>  		return -ENOMEM;

also small nit this reads,

 if (!psock)
    psock = ...
 if (!psock)
    return -ENOMEM

how about,

 if (!psock) {
   psock = ...
   if (!psock) return -ENOMEM;
 }