On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 10:26:53PM +0200, KP Singh wrote: > 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. Sounds good to me. Thanks for verifying the idea. Feel free to make changes or clean up on this RFC. > 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__patchwork.ozlabs.org_project_netdev_patch_20200723115032.460770-2D4-2Dkpsingh-40chromium.org_&d=DwICaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=VQnoQ7LvghIj0gVEaiQSUw&m=NZVmomh5sMPlIAqLmFQ_MXlMILuq1Z7TQqntbPoZ0ew&s=MLVevCJz2eNWswxXXF3jFYdAV2UG-xJEi0I1PkLL-fw&e= > > > > 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. You are correct. No, it is not needed. I threw in there merely because it is a map_ops. It is unused and can be removed. > > +{ > > + struct sock *sk = owner; > > + > > + return &sk->sk_bpf_storage; > > +} > > +
