On 12/21/21 6:27 PM, Tyler Wear wrote:
Need to modify the ds field to support upcoming
Wifi QoS Alliance spec. Instead of adding generic
function for just modifying the ds field, add
skb_store_bytes for BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SKB. This
allows other fields in the network and transport header
to be modified in the future.
Could change tag from "[PATCH]" to "[PATCH bpf-next]"?
Please also indicate the version of the patch, so in
this case, it should be "[PATCH bpf-next v2]".
I think you can add more contents in the commit
message about why existing bpf_setsockopt() won't work
and why CGROUP_UDP[4|6]_SENDMSG is not preferred.
These have been discussed in v1 of this patch and they
are valuable for people to understand full context
and reasoning.
Signed-off-by: Tyler Wear <quic_twear@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
net/core/filter.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c
index 6102f093d59a..0c25aa2212a2 100644
--- a/net/core/filter.c
+++ b/net/core/filter.c
@@ -7289,6 +7289,8 @@ static const struct bpf_func_proto *
cg_skb_func_proto(enum bpf_func_id func_id, const struct bpf_prog *prog)
{
switch (func_id) {
+ case BPF_FUNC_skb_store_bytes:
+ return &bpf_skb_store_bytes_proto;
Typically different 'case's are added in chronological order to people
can guess what is added earlier and what is added later. Maybe add
the new helper after BPF_FUNC_perf_event_output?
case BPF_FUNC_get_local_storage:
return &bpf_get_local_storage_proto;
case BPF_FUNC_sk_fullsock:
Please add a test case to exercise the new usage of
bpf_skb_store_bytes() helper. You may piggy back on
some existing cg_skb progs if it is easier to do.
