On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 12:51 PM Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 04:20:34PM -0800, Song Liu wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 12:45 PM Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Cong Wang <cong.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > When BPF_SK_SKB_VERDICT was introduced, I forgot to add
> > > a section mapping for it in libbpf.
> > >
> > > Fixes: a7ba4558e69a ("sock_map: Introduce BPF_SK_SKB_VERDICT")
> > > Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Cong Wang <cong.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > The patch looks good to me. But seems the selftests are OK without this. So,
> > do we really need this?
> >
>
> Not sure if I understand this question.
>
> At least BPF_SK_SKB_STREAM_PARSER and BPF_SK_SKB_STREAM_VERDICT are already
> there, so either we should remove all of them or add BPF_SK_SKB_VERDICT for
> completeness.
>
> Or are you suggesting we should change it back in selftests too? Note, it was
> changed by Andrii in commit 15669e1dcd75fe6d51e495f8479222b5884665b6:
>
> -SEC("sk_skb/skb_verdict")
> +SEC("sk_skb")
Yes, I noticed that Andrii made the change, and it seems to work
as-is. Therefore,
I had the question "do we really need it".
If we do need to differentiate skb_verdict from just sk_skb, could you
please add a
case selftest for skb_verdict?
Also, maybe we can name it as "sk_skb/verdict" to avoid duplication?
Thanks,
Song
