Cong Wang wrote: > 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. Thanks that would be great. > > Meanwhile, let me think about how to make it accurate, if possible at > all. But clearly this deserves a separate patch. Yep should be ok. We set the error code in desc->error in the verdict recv handler maybe tracking through this. > > Thanks.
