Thanks for this, I was able to update the series with this patch and it works. One minor comment though. I was wondering how should I send it as a part of the series. I will keep the original commit description + mention this thread and add your Co-Developed-by: tag and then you can add your Signed-off-by: as well. I am not sure of the canonical way here and am open to suggestions :) - KP On 25.07.20 03:30, Martin KaFai Lau wrote: > It is a direct replacement of the patch 3 in discussion [1] > and to test out the idea on adding > map_local_storage_charge, map_local_storage_uncharge, > and map_owner_storage_ptr. > > It is only compiler tested to demo the idea. > > [1]: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/patch/20200723115032.460770-4-kpsingh@xxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@xxxxxx> > --- > include/linux/bpf.h | 10 ++ > include/net/bpf_sk_storage.h | 51 +++++++ > include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 8 +- [...] > + > +static void sk_storage_uncharge(struct bpf_local_storage_map *smap, > + void *owner, u32 size) > +{ > + struct sock *sk = owner; > + > + atomic_sub(size, &sk->sk_omem_alloc); > +} > + > +static struct bpf_local_storage __rcu ** > +sk_storage_ptr(struct bpf_local_storage_map *smap, void *owner) Do we need an smap pointer here? It's not being used and is also not used for inode as well. - KP > +{ > + struct sock *sk = owner; > + > + return &sk->sk_bpf_storage; > +} > + [...] > -/* BPF_FUNC_sk_storage_get flags */ > +/* BPF_FUNC_<local>_storage_get flags */ > enum { > - BPF_SK_STORAGE_GET_F_CREATE = (1ULL << 0), > + BPF_LOCAL_STORAGE_GET_F_CREATE = (1ULL << 0), > + /* BPF_SK_STORAGE_GET_F_CREATE is only kept for backward compatibility > + * and BPF_LOCAL_STORAGE_GET_F_CREATE must be used instead. > + */ > + BPF_SK_STORAGE_GET_F_CREATE = BPF_LOCAL_STORAGE_GET_F_CREATE, > }; > > /* BPF_FUNC_read_branch_records flags. */ >
