Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-64565-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 15:49:42 -0800
In-Reply-To: <r4mpzzib2rzcinai6ctcb32jvcbaenrjfddfcr4o6ghfvnqwct@gcmlz3pi253f>
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
References: <7lv62yiyvmj5a7eozv2iznglpkydkdfancgmbhiptrgvgan5sy@3fl3onchgdz3>
 <ZcpMCnJMwbgiUMmE@google.com> <r4mpzzib2rzcinai6ctcb32jvcbaenrjfddfcr4o6ghfvnqwct@gcmlz3pi253f>
Message-ID: <ZcwAFtxMb9j46-rC@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next] net: remove check in __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_skb
From: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>
To: Oliver Crumrine <ozlinuxc@gmail.com>
Cc: ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, john.fastabend@gmail.com, 
	andrii@kernel.org, martin.lau@linux.dev, song@kernel.org, 
	yonghong.song@linux.dev, kpsingh@kernel.org, haoluo@google.com, 
	jolsa@kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

On 02/13, Oliver Crumrine wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 08:49:14AM -0800, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > On 02/09, Oliver Crumrine wrote:
> > > Originally, this patch removed a redundant check in
> > > BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_INET_EGRESS, as the check was already being done in
> > > the function it called, __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_skb. For v2, it was
> > > reccomended that I remove the check from __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_skb,
> > > and add the checks to the other macro that calls that function,
> > > BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_INET_INGRESS.
> > > 
> > > To sum it up, checking that the socket exists and that it is a full
> > > socket is now part of both macros BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_INET_EGRESS and
> > > BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_INET_INGRESS, and it is no longer part of the
> > > function they call, __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_skb.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Oliver Crumrine <ozlinuxc@gmail.com>
> > 
> > Acked-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>
> 
> Quick question: My subject had "net:" in it. Should it have had "bpf:" in
> the subject instead?
> 
> If yes, would this warrant another version of this patch or resending it
> with a different subject?
> 
> It felt right to put net: there as it felt like I was working with 
> networking code that was simply calling bpf code but I'm not exactly
> sure of that anymore.
> 
> This is my first kernel patch that has actually gone anywhere and 
> I'm just looking for some feedback as I couldn't find much good 
> documentation on kernel.org that describes how I should be doing 
> this.

It's fine, the only part that really matters is [PATCH bpf-next]. That
puts it into bpf patchwork so somebody will merge that eventually :-)

WRT documentation, Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst should have all
the info you need.