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;
Date:   Thu, 13 May 2021 13:42:14 +0200
From:   Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
To:     Arseny Krasnov <arseny.krasnov@kaspersky.com>
Cc:     Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Jorgen Hansen <jhansen@vmware.com>,
        Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>,
        Andra Paraschiv <andraprs@amazon.com>,
        Norbert Slusarek <nslusarek@gmx.net>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stsp2@yandex.ru, oxffffaa@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v9 06/19] af_vsock: rest of SEQPACKET support
Message-ID: <20210513114214.66mfm76tp65af5yq@steredhat>
References: <20210508163027.3430238-1-arseny.krasnov@kaspersky.com>
 <20210508163350.3431361-1-arseny.krasnov@kaspersky.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210508163350.3431361-1-arseny.krasnov@kaspersky.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, May 08, 2021 at 07:33:46PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>This does rest of SOCK_SEQPACKET support:
>1) Adds socket ops for SEQPACKET type.
>2) Allows to create socket with SEQPACKET type.
>
>Signed-off-by: Arseny Krasnov <arseny.krasnov@kaspersky.com>
>Reviewed-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>

This patch is changed, so usually you should remove the R-b tags.

>---
> include/net/af_vsock.h   |  1 +
> net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
>diff --git a/include/net/af_vsock.h b/include/net/af_vsock.h
>index 5860027d5173..1747c0b564ef 100644
>--- a/include/net/af_vsock.h
>+++ b/include/net/af_vsock.h
>@@ -140,6 +140,7 @@ struct vsock_transport {
> 				     int flags, bool *msg_ready);
> 	int (*seqpacket_enqueue)(struct vsock_sock *vsk, struct msghdr *msg,
> 				 size_t len);
>+	bool (*seqpacket_allow)(u32 remote_cid);

I'm thinking if it's better to follow .dgram_allow() and .stream_allow(),
specifying also the `port` param, but since it's not used, we can add
later if needed.

So, I think this is fine:

Reviewed-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>