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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 878DCC433F5 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2021 23:33:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S241025AbhK3Xgf (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2021 18:36:35 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:41294 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S240948AbhK3Xgf (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2021 18:36:35 -0500 Received: from ams.source.kernel.org (ams.source.kernel.org [IPv6:2604:1380:4601:e00::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E636C061574; Tue, 30 Nov 2021 15:33:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ams.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C626EB81DA8; Tue, 30 Nov 2021 23:33:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 73429C53FC7; Tue, 30 Nov 2021 23:33:11 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1638315192; bh=o66XONlC1x/mhPbq0QtOTpAuom5KiJgE2R06gIbJ6u0=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc:From; b=InkOuhknGOxd8N5xl77GeDgAOnq+d/9pm5MdtGHWcXiD9sTnJVSC+xc4sEo3FJqoU SyZx5MODcD6z7+PZw9QHimAh4jmTn7gyxrfNXZIcj37ch24ZM1h8jGTNC3FC5lnAXH 0F8nxyx+5p+7qYuwiB9PYTBuKi/MLq6gwYZ8zpDw0JVz1PN/gd6hDoDpydRQWDj55g 0o0KQQMPIRKqE5l8ybVeJ05iZ6or3HPiOHmsG3okEVrXRO6t8VEQ7/UWk2bNlRJKUw c/YziQvI9SK7U1XmIa5haiobFs7H2BRYswgwTokBF+dDzKe9lkNtm3Jde2TIHgzsVg zHwMa+ExPfWGg== Received: by mail-yb1-f172.google.com with SMTP id y68so57669987ybe.1; Tue, 30 Nov 2021 15:33:11 -0800 (PST) X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532gpiuM+CJouURZrwPageq/vXVEPPfzAFkWWr6YfYj4ALKW4Ezj n+Ne9SBlpNlJEQpmFjO2PNcQ8k8oCflJo3C+CgU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyjfnEFhglo0DbcwGwTognFvP2jCytpZFHG6zbtK0Q4Pbjy4fnci8JRQMgx7o6CZV/l6pxSis0dP8fUB6XZ4rc= X-Received: by 2002:a25:3bc3:: with SMTP id i186mr2912182yba.282.1638315190634; Tue, 30 Nov 2021 15:33:10 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20211126204108.11530-1-xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Song Liu Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2021 15:32:59 -0800 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf] libbpf: fix missing section "sk_skb/skb_verdict" To: Cong Wang , Andrii Nakryiko Cc: Networking , bpf , Cong Wang , Daniel Borkmann , John Fastabend , Jakub Sitnicki Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 12:51 PM Cong Wang wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 04:20:34PM -0800, Song Liu wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 12:45 PM Cong Wang wrote: > > > > > > From: Cong Wang > > > > > > When BPF_SK_SKB_VERDICT was introduced, I forgot to add > > > a section mapping for it in libbpf. > > > > > > Fixes: a7ba4558e69a ("sock_map: Introduce BPF_SK_SKB_VERDICT") > > > Cc: Daniel Borkmann > > > Cc: John Fastabend > > > Cc: Jakub Sitnicki > > > Signed-off-by: Cong Wang > > > > The patch looks good to me. But seems the selftests are OK without this. So, > > do we really need this? > > > > Not sure if I understand this question. > > At least BPF_SK_SKB_STREAM_PARSER and BPF_SK_SKB_STREAM_VERDICT are already > there, so either we should remove all of them or add BPF_SK_SKB_VERDICT for > completeness. > > Or are you suggesting we should change it back in selftests too? Note, it was > changed by Andrii in commit 15669e1dcd75fe6d51e495f8479222b5884665b6: > > -SEC("sk_skb/skb_verdict") > +SEC("sk_skb") Yes, I noticed that Andrii made the change, and it seems to work as-is. Therefore, I had the question "do we really need it". If we do need to differentiate skb_verdict from just sk_skb, could you please add a case selftest for skb_verdict? Also, maybe we can name it as "sk_skb/verdict" to avoid duplication? Thanks, Song