On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 1:29 PM Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 1/26/22 20:30, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 12:22:13AM +0000, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> >> #define BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_INET_INGRESS(sk, skb) \
> >> ({ \
> >> int __ret = 0; \
> >> - if (cgroup_bpf_enabled(CGROUP_INET_INGRESS)) \
> >> + if (cgroup_bpf_enabled(CGROUP_INET_INGRESS) && sk && \
> > From reading sk_filter_trim_cap() where this will be called, sk cannot be NULL.
> > If yes, the new sk test is not needed.
>
> Well, there is no sane way to verify how it's used considering
>
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(__cgroup_bpf_run_filter_skb);
BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_INET_INGRESS() is used in one place.
Are you folks saying that you want to remove !sk check
from __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_skb()?
Seems like micro optimization, but sure why not.
EXPORT_SYMBOL() is there because of "ipv6 as a module" mess.
So it's not a concern.
Pls tag the subj of the patch with [PATCH bpf-next]
instead of "for-next".
