On 10/31/16 at 06:16pm, Daniel Mack wrote:

On 10/31/2016 06:05 PM, David Ahern wrote:

quoted

On 10/31/16 11:00 AM, Daniel Mack wrote:

quoted

Yeah, I'm confused too. I changed that name in my v7 from 
BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SOCK to BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SKB on David's
(Ahern) request. Why is it now renamed again?

Thomas pushed back on adding another program type in favor of using
subtypes. So this makes the program type generic to CGROUP and patch
2 in this v2 set added Mickaël's subtype patch with the socket
mangling done that way in patch 3.

Fine for me. I can change it around again.

I would like to hear from Daniel B and Alexei as well. We need to
decide whether to use subtypes consistently and treat prog types as
something more high level or whether to bluntly introduce a new prog
type for every distinct set of verifier limits. I will change lwt_bpf
as well accordingly.