> On May 1, 2023, at 4:32 PM, Aditi Ghag <aditi.ghag@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On Apr 24, 2023, at 3:15 PM, Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 4/18/23 8:31 AM, Aditi Ghag wrote: >>> This patch adds the capability to destroy sockets in BPF. We plan to use >>> the capability in Cilium to force client sockets to reconnect when their >>> remote load-balancing backends are deleted. The other use case is >>> on-the-fly policy enforcement where existing socket connections prevented >>> by policies need to be terminated. >> >> If the earlier kfunc filter patch (https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/1ECC8AAA-C2E6-4F8A-B7D3-5E90BDEE7C48@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/) looks fine to you, please include it into the next revision. This patchset needs it. Usual thing to do is to keep my sob (and author if not much has changed) and add your sob. The test needs to be broken out into a separate patch though. It needs to use the '__failure __msg("calling kernel function bpf_sock_destroy is not allowed")'. There are many examples in selftests, eg. the dynptr_fail.c. >> > > Yeah, ok. I was waiting for your confirmation. The patch doesn't need my sob though (maybe tested-by). > I've created a separate patch for the test. > Ah, looks like the patch is missing a proper description. While I can add something wrt sock_destroy use case, if you have a blurb, feel free to post it here. > >> Please also fix the subject in the patches. They are all missing the bpf-next and revision tag. >> > > Took me a few moments to realize that as I was looking at earlier series. Looks like I forgot to add the tags to subsequent patches in this series. I'll fix it up in the next push.
