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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v8 3/7] bpf: Generalize bpf_sk_storage
To:     Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org>
References: <20200803164655.1924498-1-kpsingh@chromium.org>
 <20200803164655.1924498-4-kpsingh@chromium.org>
 <20200818010545.iix72le4tkhuyqe5@kafai-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
 <6cb51fa0-61a5-2cf6-b44d-84d58d08c775@chromium.org>
 <20200819171215.lcgoon3fbm4kvkpc@kafai-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
From:   KP Singh <kpsingh@chromium.org>
Message-ID: <a69e6bdf-7a1b-3152-f26b-20175451d9c2@chromium.org>
Date:   Thu, 20 Aug 2020 00:19:44 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:68.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200819171215.lcgoon3fbm4kvkpc@kafai-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 19.08.20 19:12, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 02:41:50PM +0200, KP Singh wrote:
>> On 8/18/20 3:05 AM, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 06:46:51PM +0200, KP Singh wrote:
>>>> From: KP Singh <kpsingh@google.com>
>>>>
>>>> Refactor the functionality in bpf_sk_storage.c so that concept of

[...]

>>>> +			struct bpf_local_storage_map *smap,
>>>> +			struct bpf_local_storage_elem *first_selem);
>>>> +
>>>> +struct bpf_local_storage_data *
>>>> +bpf_local_storage_update(void *owner, struct bpf_map *map, void *value,
>>> Nit.  It may be more consistent to take "struct bpf_local_storage_map *smap"
>>> instead of "struct bpf_map *map" here.
>>>
>>> bpf_local_storage_map_check_btf() will be the only one taking
>>> "struct bpf_map *map".
>>
>> That's because it is used in map operations as map_check_btf which expects
>> a bpf_map *map pointer. We can wrap it in another function but is that
>> worth doing?
> Agree.  bpf_local_storage_map_check_btf() should stay as is.
> 
> I meant to only change the "bpf_local_storage_update()" to take
> "struct bpf_local_storage_map *smap".
> 

Apologies, I misread that. Updated.

- KP

 up here
>> 	 * or when the storage is freed e.g.
>> 	 * by bpf_sk_storage_free() during __sk_destruct().
>>
> +1
>