Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200727184506.2279656-1-guro@fb.com> <20200727184506.2279656-31-guro@fb.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200727184506.2279656-31-guro@fb.com>
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 27 Jul 2020 23:00:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CAEf4BzYrN=SJDZ4DC-H7yCBn41p+RgMeWC8KMpkoMpeaRscbUA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 30/35] bpf: bpftool: do not touch RLIMIT_MEMLOCK
To:     Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
Cc:     bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Kernel Team <kernel-team@fb.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 12:21 PM Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com> wrote:
>
> Since bpf stopped using memlock rlimit to limit the memory usage,
> there is no more reason for bpftool to alter its own limits.
>
> Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
> ---

This can't be removed either, due to old kernel support. We probably
should have a helper function to probe RLIMIT_MEMLOCK use by BPF
subsystem, though, and not call set_max_rlimit() is not necessary.

>  tools/bpf/bpftool/common.c     | 7 -------
>  tools/bpf/bpftool/feature.c    | 2 --
>  tools/bpf/bpftool/main.h       | 2 --
>  tools/bpf/bpftool/map.c        | 2 --
>  tools/bpf/bpftool/pids.c       | 1 -
>  tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c       | 3 ---
>  tools/bpf/bpftool/struct_ops.c | 2 --
>  7 files changed, 19 deletions(-)
>

[...]