On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 12:12 PM John Fastabend <john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Considering, the other case where we do kfree_skb when consume_skb() > is correct. We have logic in the Cilium tracing tools (tetragon) to > trace kfree_skb's and count them. So in the good case here > we end up tripping that logic even though its expected. > > The question is which is better noisy kfree_skb even when > expected or missing kfree_skb on the drops. I'm leaning > to consume_skb() is safer instead of noisy kfree_skb(). Oh, sure. As long as we all know neither of them is accurate, I am 100% fine with changing it to consume_skb() to reduce the noise for you. Meanwhile, let me think about how to make it accurate, if possible at all. But clearly this deserves a separate patch. Thanks.
