From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_NEOMUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0955CC43382 for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 10:25:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDBAD2172C for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 10:25:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="nZGytgrK" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org BDBAD2172C Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729409AbeI1QsP (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Sep 2018 12:48:15 -0400 Received: from mail-pg1-f195.google.com ([209.85.215.195]:35521 "EHLO mail-pg1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729116AbeI1QsP (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Sep 2018 12:48:15 -0400 Received: by mail-pg1-f195.google.com with SMTP id v133-v6so4170885pgb.2; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 03:25:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=pvc7tOC6Knfednrgqlv5BibEH//tfqrHoyN25vxI7sI=; b=nZGytgrKFXcm8xP6XtGqw+h79hKX4hMfNK1RvypplJB22l3EyBhySgubkf8PmI50Br t48GDZCvba0KlJtku2N97rqbdNgLJvRJa0HsFqWJanzGzX05+Kg72pGihFJOy9JujwsS aQex4hpM9k+hoiICfq/aQ2C1HJijRi+rUg3seU6XQDmdog0IEhA/z/6esUlF36XjUpBV gzP3oxI2C7Fha3M9oLWKUJ1uJO47gcqZXZWQa35W5gKK6PE+yWZmWT3UGiviRCncU/qN fuuEl7tBlpJPb52cn0G8nvuF+zTafqVgFnoBs8EDQ3sifck6xeKnTl+P+eztAoVxgnIL v98Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=pvc7tOC6Knfednrgqlv5BibEH//tfqrHoyN25vxI7sI=; b=ZSHc56gRWT1kBr6ROxLotKcOiAR3u0eMXEcjVaBk7rIp+wmpbpC1fLfQ39JWOG5qQa sIsqcb0amgxSnikWcisqnfpmN/UOpBMVSTEPvMq7LcnJ//mE2Pof5y8BGHhM40z3wATs VWkLuMFko6/dpYLHg2623MbFM/pRS4Wm7dc4/7VSul6D940H9mFupQHXthC3t3BSswLf acrl3dOVFOWuZrQO3km+m8BJw/buk+sSHciiJBzDkiJrx4RX4/igJC/ffTjxzpLj69pG oDiZzpziR49QD0dhmQ/idGzcJ5hRX2b2oH+UEcyiFAZxTXlypBDexQP8rU5guC8I/dyo /p3A== X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfoh/gc2m/LNvFU69xVNoqvCzX5/hmUMZb7zezOopAH74OndvFn/J pgImA1Kv6YWC279u55XGCj1236EGo6k= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV60acAPd7mazysnSWkyk9bPsSw2nzi9RRkY91YucEUK3Z/d54cRjCWmHZYagIZoNTXs1swW9Eg== X-Received: by 2002:a65:5b07:: with SMTP id y7-v6mr11576218pgq.125.1538130309771; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 03:25:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com ([2620:10d:c090:180::1:5ff1]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 70-v6sm7474830pfz.27.2018.09.28.03.25.06 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 28 Sep 2018 03:25:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2018 12:25:01 +0200 From: Alexei Starovoitov To: Roman Gushchin Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Song Liu , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com, Daniel Borkmann , Alexei Starovoitov Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 bpf-next 03/10] bpf: introduce per-cpu cgroup local storage Message-ID: <20180928102458.dbia6xnxkijvkld6@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com> References: <20180926113326.29069-1-guro@fb.com> <20180926113326.29069-4-guro@fb.com> <20180928084528.i5txkac34pmqvs3p@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com> <20180928100302.GB9018@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180928100302.GB9018@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180223 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 11:03:03AM +0100, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > > + > > > + if (unlikely(map_flags & BPF_EXIST)) > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > that should have been BPF_NOEXIST ? > > Yeah, or maybe even better s/&/!= ? > It's probably better to require BPF_EXIST flag to update a cgroup storage? > Agree? If so, let me fix this for both shared and per-cpu versions in > a follow-up patch. I think BPF_ANY is technically valid too. If we were to require strict BPF_EXIST only, we'd need to fix stable too. I'm fine with both (BPF_EXIST only and BPF_ANY|BPF_EXIST). Daniel, what do you think?